Is Apple & Community Evangelizing Into Uncoolness? 546
kbeischer writes "John Kheit followed up his MacObsorne article, which others have since covered minus the parts detailing a Steve Jobs uncanny ability to repeat his own mistakes, with a scathing editorial damning the most of the Mac Press, Apple's managment and parts of the user base as a bunch of deranged goose-stepping lemmings that are ignoring the costs associated with the Mac PPC to Intel switch. In the editorial, he links to an older article on BOZO (bitter obstanate zealot order) users causing market share loss. All of which makes me wonder, do evangelical users and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?"
"Scathing"....good word. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a quote from TFA (the very first sentence, as matter of fact...):
Nice going, Sarcastro. Nothing opens up the floor for rational discussion like howling ad hominem attacks.
I thought that the rest of the article would prove to be more substantive, but no, it's pretty much all like that.
Perfect article for Slashdotters, though. Let the flame war begin.
Re:"Scathing"....good word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"Scathing"....good word. (Score:3, Interesting)
Silly, I agree, but more than 1 person out there misread it. There was a whole discussion on macrumors.com about it.
Re:"Scathing"....good word. (Score:5, Insightful)
I could forgive the guy but he starts off like an asshat. When researching an article maybe you should know a bit about what you are writing. Like Quad Pentium 4's don't exist and Mac Rumor sites frequently are full of shit (G5 Powerbook out days after WWDC). A Mac fanatic I can see making this mistake (since they probably have only used PPC/68K based systems). For someone ripping Mac users for their zealotry I think it's a stupid ass mistake.
Re:"Scathing"....good word. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Xlr8yourmac provides an account of a mere single processor Pentium 4 running at 3.6GHz outperforming a dual processor G5 running at 2.7GHz:"
This was an account of an individual claiming to have a development kit, running benchmarks. When he was talking about the 4-cpu pentium 4 (which, as you have stated does not exist) he was referring to the machine at the keynote presentation.
I don't necessarily think it's that easy to blame him, for two reasons: firstly, OS X on Intel was a g
Re:"Scathing"....good word. (Score:3)
Re:"Scathing"....good word. (Score:3, Insightful)
Back 15 years ago, I used to work with CalvaCom, a large commercial BBS à la Compuserve (except in France) which was a descendant of an Apple project to regroup developpers. Although the thing quickly opened to a more general public, the Mac userbase remained dominant and they were already "goose-stepping lemmings", making pretty much the same claims they are today, except that back then Mac OS was a crappy kludge wi
Outright knock each other based on gut feeling (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Outright knock each other based on gut feeling (Score:3, Interesting)
Talk about missing the point... (Score:5, Informative)
So please, RTFA. It's worth it.
Re:Talk about missing the point... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple is well known for abandoning old hardware and software... that's one of the reasons its so much cleaner than Windows. A processor change now doesn't seem to raise the risk much higher than it's ever been. If XCode seamlessly compiles to both as well as Jobs c
Ultimately they hurt the product (Score:2, Insightful)
Overall, it's the same thing as before, the evangelist damning things that the normal user will not even care about, as long as it works the same way.
You mean like Linux zealots? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You mean like Linux zealots? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You mean like Linux zealots? (Score:2, Funny)
That reminds me of Windows zealots....
oh wait...
nobody really likes Windows.
Re:You mean like Linux zealots? (Score:2)
Nice! I'm getting the tat made up now!
Re:You mean like Linux zealots? (Score:2)
Re:You mean like Linux zealots? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:You mean like Linux zealots? (Score:2)
<RussianAccent>
I spill my drink!!!
</RussianAccent>
One hundred points to the person who can identify the source of that quote.
In reality (Score:3, Insightful)
People all too often insult those who like the product for what it is, bycalling them fan-boys when who they really should insult is the people who blindly love something because its made by the manufacturer
Re:In reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:In reality (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In reality (Score:2)
Anti and pro (X) zealots are always a pain as they cause problems for those who are genuine fans and Disponents
Re:In reality (Score:2)
That's what we call "branding", and it's not stupid. It's a decision-making heuristic that manufacturers and consumers use jointly so that people can buy what they think they want without having to do as much product research on their own.
People who like Macs have reasons for it. The Mac OSX experience is slick, fast, and very user-friendly. It's charming and easy to work with. The learning curve is extremely low, too. On top
Re:In reality (Score:2)
Re:In reality (Score:2)
Re:In reality (Score:2)
Yawn (Score:2)
I wish there was an objective way of rating columnists, but I really like the 'deathmatch' idea proposed on an earlier
"All the news that's fit to print", and a bunch of stuff I just made up...
Simon
Evangelists vs. Zealots (Score:5, Insightful)
A zealot will drown you out and/or attempt to make life rough for you if you disagree with him.
Some people get turned off by evangelists they disagree with, almost everyone gets turned off by zealots they disagree with.
Re:Evangelists vs. Zealots (Score:5, Insightful)
Evangelists are not rational. They make up arguements to support beliefs, not facts. The article points this out by example, saying that the Mac evangelists bashed Intel until the day Jobs said Apple was switching to Intel. Now they're adjusting their arguements to fit in with the new belief that Intel is good.
Well if it helped.. (Score:4, Funny)
Bah (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that there will never be a "winner" in this debate. They're all here to stay, and the more griping and screaming that's done about how much better one product is than the other, the more people won't want to use those products simply because everyone supporting them seems like a blathering idiot... They all have good and ad points and all this screaming is retarded.
Neg Mod away...
just die already (Score:5, Funny)
Steve to developers in 2002: OS 9 is dead, stop developing for it.
Steve in 2003: You should all be developing for OS X now, OS 9 is dead.
Steve in 2005: Develop under OS X Xcode, OS 9 is long dead
Steve in 2006: I mean it, seriously, just stop already
Steve in 2007: WTF is wrong with you people, stop developing for OS 9 already.
So they say Rosetta won't run OS 9 apps... isn't it time Classic is laid to rest once and for all? You need to step forward at some point.
Re:just die already (Score:5, Funny)
I know...I can totally relate...I try to run apps on my old Win 3.11 box, and it's all like "this is not a valid executable" and junk...
^_^
You didn't start early enough: (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve to developers in 1997: Rhapsody will only run OS 8 apps in an emulator, start using "Yellow Box" now.
Steve to developers in 1998: If you port to Carbon, you'll be able to run on Rhapsody and OS 8/9.
Steve to developers in 1997: If you develop for Carbon, you'll be able to run on OS X and OS 8/9.
Steve to developers in 2000: If you develop for Carbon, you can run on OS X, but Cocoa is really the way forward.
Steve to developers in 2001: We really have OS X working properly now, switch to Cocoa.
Steve to developers in 2002: OS 9 is dead, stop developing for it.
Steve in 2003: You should all be developing for OS X now, OS 9 is dead.
Steve in 2004: Develop under OS X Xcode, OS 9 is long dead
Steve in 2005: It'll be much easier to port Cocoa apps to OS X Intel, and did you notice we don't sell OS 9 bootable Macs any more?
Steve in 2006: It's much easier to port Cocoa apps to OS X Intel, you don't need to keep OS 9 compatibility, honest!
Steve in 2007: WTF is wrong with you people, stop developing for OS 9 already.
Some legacy Mac apps, for nostalgia (Score:3, Interesting)
Bolo.
Early versions of MacWrite/MacPaint.
Fool's Errand (and its sequels).
NetTrek 3.
Zork.
Or anything that used to be shipped on a 400k, 800k or 1.4mb floppy(ies). Photoshop 1.0, QuickTime 1.0...
Etc., etc.
For those who grew up on Macs, these have nostalgic meaning. It would be nice to be able to run them, on a whim. I know it must seem silly, but I was a nerdy kid and spent a lot of my life on Macs and promoting Macs
Hopefully there will be an emulation solution for this stuff. I know that bac
Re:just die already (Score:2)
But nothing lasts forever; eventually I'll upgrade to an intel-based mac in a few years, and it won't be able to run the mac classic version of Alpha Centauri. Then again, maybe some ingenious people will
Why I use Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why I use Apple (Score:2)
It really only becomes interesting when a product/company fails, then the zealots
Some thoughts... (Score:5, Informative)
Q: Will x86 Macs be cheaper than today's Macs?
A: A better question would be, "Will x86 Macs be cheaper than 'equivalent' PowerPC-based Macs would have been had the IBM relationship not gone south?" My answer is "no." Expect Macs to remain more expensive than PCs.
Q: Will I be able to run Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC?
A: No.
Q: Try and stop me!
A: Apple most assuredly will--try, that is. And they'll fail, just like Microsoft failed to stop people from installing Linux and MAME on the Xbox. But like MS, all Apple has to do is make sure that only Slashdot-reading, VoIP-using, PC-assembling, DMCA-breaking geeks hack their way to an "unapproved" configuration of hardware and software. If it's illegal (thanks to the Mac OS X EULA or the DMCA) or at least "technically complex and/or annoying" to run Mac OS X on non-Apple x86 hardware, Apple will be able to absorb any loss in hardware sales attributable to geeks and hardware hackers.
Q: Will future Macs use Pentium 4 CPUs like Apple's x86 developer kit announced today?
A: Probably not. I expect Apple to start with Intel's next generation of multi-core CPUs. Hannibal has more to say about this issue.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows applications on an x86 Mac?
A: Not unless you also run Windows on it.
Q: Okay, will I be able to boot an x86 Mac into Windows?
A: No.
Q: Try and sto--
A: See earlier answer about running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PC. Update: I missed this quote from Phil Schiller. "That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will. We won't do anything to preclude that." My reaction to this new information can be found in the article discussion thread.
Q: Will I be able to run Windows on an x86 Mac?
A: With something like Virtual PC, yes. (Well, VMware, really.) Only it'll actually be fast now, close to native speed if all goes well.
Q: Will Apple provide a VMware-like environment to run Windows applications at near-native speeds on x86 Macs running Mac OS X?
A: No.
Q: Okay, then will someone other than Apple provide one?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple continue to design its own motherboards, or will it use commodity PC parts?
A: I think Apple will continue to produce custom designs, or will "bless" a particular PC motherboard/chipset maker (like Intel, for instance...) and contract them to build boards/chipsets that suit Apple's needs.
Q: Will Apple's planned emulation of the PowerPC ISA on an x86 chip really work?
A: It'll be "good enough," but not nearly as good as 68K emulation was on the PowerPC.
Q: Will developers get onboard with such a big change, or will they revolt and abandon ship?
A: If history is any indication, enough developers will ride out the storm to maintain the life of the platform.
Q: Will porting Mac OS X applications to x86 really be easier than porting classic Mac OS applications to Mac OS X was?
A: Yes.
Q: Will Apple maintain an internal PowerPC build of Mac OS X even after moving its entire product line to x86 processors "just in case" they ever need to switch back?
A: I hope so, if only to continue to enforce the discipline of portability.
Q: Is Microsoft worried that every Windows user is suddenly a potential Mac OS X user if Apple ever decides to give up or de-emphasize its hardware business?
A: You bet your ass they are. Don't believe the hype. Microsoft worries about everything, and this is more than a little blip on their radar.
Q: Would Apple ever do that? You know, sell Mac OS X to current Windows users to install on their existing PCs?
A: Someday, maybe, but not soon, and probably only after Apple is convinced that such a market exists and is big enough to be worth sacrificing their own hardware business. How will Apple be convinced of this?
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:5, Informative)
Just because the developer transition platform is using an Intel BIOS doesn't mean that shipping Intel-based Macs in one to two years will:
From Dean Reece of Apple http://lists.apple.com/archives/Darwin-drivers/20
We realize there are lots of folks that need to know what is going to be in the ROMs on these new machines, and what partition scheme will be used. Unfortunately, we are not yet in a position to make that information available, but we will communicate it as soon as we reasonably can. Don't assume that what you see in the transition boxes represents what will be present in the final product.
> I'm cautiously hoping for EFI as the firmware.
The general consensus I've heard from other developers is:
1) They don't want us to use BIOS
2) If they haven't heard of EFI, they want us to use OF
3) If they have heard of EFI, they want us to use EFI
This is not a statement about what Apple will use, just what I've heard from developers that have an opinion on the subject.
Hang in there...
- Dean
Information on EFI:
http://www.intel.com/technology/efi/ [intel.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_
Re:Some thoughts... (Score:2)
Mistakes? well, maybe... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think NOT offering an Intel platform in the first mistake.
Also, the author talks about revenue loss until the unproven Intel product was released!
I am not sure, but Apple's announcement is certainly NOT stopping me from running and buying a Mac today...
Heck, if I REALLY want a Mac, I get it... if not.. will hang around till other options are available .
Here's the rest of my question... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Here's the rest of my question... (Score:2)
For once I'm glad the editors cut something out of the article submission, because your question is pure gibberish.
How are you supposed to answer something like this: "Did the iPod become successful because of or because of a lack of evangelizing?"
And that's
does not compute (Score:3, Funny)
John Kheit followed up his MacObsorne article, which others have since covered minus the parts detailing a Steve Jobs uncanny ability to repeat his own mistakes, with a scathing editorial damning the most of the Mac Press, Apple's managment and parts of the user base as a bunch of deranged goose-stepping lemmings that are ignoring the costs associated with the Mac PPC to Intel switch.
I mean, I get the jist, but my meat parser is going apeshit over the syntax.
Re:does not compute (Score:3, Insightful)
What's his point again? (Score:2)
Grammar is everything... (Score:2)
Well... At least it wasn't the least of the Mac Press.
8)=
The Answer is No. (Score:3, Insightful)
First it places it on a pedistal so high that it can't possibly reach.
Secondly when the normal person uses it they find that it isn't as great as the Zealot advertises they feel ripped off and will likely make an other choice in the future.
Third, excessive love for a company will only lead to pain. A company (espectially a public traded one) is in it for the money. And they will do what ever makes the most bucks for them.
Forth. Forcing decision just by strength of conviction is not a good way to make a good argument. Sure you may win the battles but overall you can loose the war.
Fifth. Dissing you competitors zealotly can make one blind on what good the other guy is dooing.
Sixth. Blind to what you being zealot about faults.
Seventh. When you do make a true balanced point you will be classified as a zealot and not listened to.
Eighth. Situations occure that forces you to flip-flop on your speach. ie "Classic Rules Unix sucks" Now "Unix Rules and Classic Sucks" or "Command line is for loosers" now "Command line adds more power to the system"
Ninth. You spend more time defending yourself then actully enjoying your life.
Tenth.
Cleaning the gene pool (Score:2)
Com. Pa. Ny.
That said, keep it up. It's amusing to see people waste all this brain energy while trying to sound intelligent. I think my favorite so far has been this one [slashdot.org], where someone literally calls into question the point of continuing development on a platform because of a pro
Harkening back to the SGI and DEC days... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Harkening back to the SGI and DEC days... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now if SGI had ported IRIX to x86 and still failed, you might have a point, but since the story doesn't read "Apple switches to Intel, ditches OS X for Apple-branded Windows," I'm afraid your comparison falls short.
Kheit just hates change (Score:2)
Always has. There's plenty of documentation of this in the Usenet archives, especially of the comp.sys.next hierarchy.
evangelizing is bad for other platforms (Score:3, Insightful)
>and press help or hurt the popularity of a platform?
I think AmigaOS is the greatest, it's easier to use and customize than blah blah blah.
Guess what? Every time someone says a good thing about Amiga, zillions of Slashdotters attack, calling the poster nuts, stupid, dead, and other things. I'll probably get called names or told my platform is dead just for posting this satirical evangalistic nonsense here.
So it's not good or beneficial to all platforms. You all used to think Mac users were a bunch of weirdos too until the switch to OSX, right? Suddenly Macs became cool and accepted on Slashdot and other places. Why did the Mac Mini get popular here, because someone went on and on about how cool they thought Apple or Jobs was, or because a tiny quiet computer with a BSD based OS was actually useful for new space-sensetive applications?
I don't think that evangelizing changed that, the better technology did.
RDF (Score:3, Interesting)
With far too few exceptions, this is a group that just days ago was smugly debunking, dismantling, and railing against the notion of Intel processors in their Macs, only now to squirm and slither out explanations that provide justifications to the contrary.
I see the Reality Distortion Field has worked once again.
OMG! The sky is falling! (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's take a step back:
Apple is now less than 2% of IBM's PowerPC business, and less than 3% of Freescale's.
IBM is focused on the server market, embedded markets, and gaming console marketplace. Not desktop and portable (especially), areas where Apple desperately needs processors.
Freescale is, and has been, focused on the embedded, communications and automotive markets, and the fact that some of the processors were also good for some Apple products was almost incidental.
PowerPC in the desktop marketplace is going nowhere fast, and IBM has shown that in spades for the last two years. Its renewed focus and commitment to the game console market eclipses any priorities Apple would ever hope IBM to have.
So, Apple made a tough choice. A choice its been planning for, just in case, for over 5 years.
The Intel (vs AMD) move was one of convenience and political expedience. Intel gets a big PR win, Apple gets its point across. Once the x86 architecture switch is complete, the hard part is over, and Apple is free to use other products from, e.g., AMD, as do many other x86 vendors. And Apple hasn't forgotten about the 64-bit marketplace in the least. The message now is simple, and has to be kept simple: we're moving to x86.
Further, PowerPC support WILL continue for an indefinite period into the future. The Mac OS X product lifecycle is now about two years. Leopard (Mac OS X 10.5) will ship likely around MWSF 2007, and will support PowerPC. It will have a lifecycle of two years, for a total of continuing support for four years from now. Apple has been providing security updates for the previous version of the OS from the current one since Mac OS X 10.0; therefore, we can assume security updates and fixes for a minimum of six years. And that's just from what we know now; the support may in fact last longer than that.
At some point, support for older hardware is dropped from the current version of the OS (e.g., G3s). What's the difference whether the hardware that supplants it contains an IBM PowerPC G6 or an Intel Pentium 6?
Further, this crap about software companies - already using Xcode, mind you - arbitrarily dropping PowerPC support from their applications early is complete, unadulterated bullshit. Aside from which, the 68K -> PPC transition, as rocky as it was, is often viewed as the quintessential success in hardware transitions.
I'm sorry if some people really want people to panic and stop buying all PowerPC hardware, and possibly commit mass suicide. But with the CLEAR commitment of Freescale and IBM to literally everywhere but the desktop(/portable) market in terms of the features and performance Apple needs, I can't see this decision as anything but a good thing.
Coolness? (Score:2)
I think not... (Score:5, Informative)
- I made the x68 to PPC switch.
- I made the OS 9 to OS X switch.
- I'm going to make the PPC to Intel switch.
Our platform has constantly been playing catch-up and on a rare occasion, our top of the line jumps ahead of the x86 top of the line for a month or so.
Unfortunately, very few of us live at the top of the line. Our consumer offerings fall well behind the x86 architecture in various areas. While the rest of our hardware is well ahead of the PC curve, the CPU does not.
Perhaps if IBM had shown us a portable G5 or a 3+GHz system... I would be morning their absence.
I will also wait until I see a shipping system before casting negative speculation on this issue. Perhaps apple WILL use a BIOS in the shipping system, perhaps not. Will we still have Firewire 800? What about Target Mode... etc. etc.
How about you wait and see what Apple and Intel can conjure up?
Re:I think not...Oh Really??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh really? Now that sounds like the dying gasp of another zelot. Having had Steve Jobs finally tell you it's okay to condem the processor, you still claim everything else Mac is better than the PC.
What exactly is ahead hardware wise? PCI slots? Nvidia video cards? AGP slot (oops). USB keyboards and mice? Audio? Just what other everything are you talking about? The power switch?
And how much of that will make the t
Re:I think not...Oh Really??? (Score:3, Informative)
Historically, Apple has led in technology innovations: GigE, 802.11g, USB instead of serial (how's your PS/2 keyboard?), Firewire, Firewire800, standard optical audio I/O (sharing a connector with the analog I/O, which is nice), standard line-level audio inputs, optical mice, self-illuminating and adjusting keyboards, touchw
Re:I think not...Oh Really??? (Score:3, Informative)
Um, I'm pretty sure Microsoft were the ones who came out with the first modern optical mice. The puck mice Apple was using in 1999 sure weren't optical.
And those keyboards are nowhere near as good as the ones the IBM Thinkpad was already using... and the LED at the top of the Thinkpad's screen does a MUCH better job of letting you work in the dark.
Mourn this... (Score:3, Interesting)
IBM is showing you a 3-core 3.2 GHz "G5" and a "G5" with 8 integrated DSPs, either of which could have been used in a Powermac if Apple was actually interested in them.
Freescale is showing you a G4 that'll run as fast as a 3 GHz Pentium 4 and cooler than a Pentium M and its bridge chips... because it's an integrated CPU with multiple independent memory and I/O ports.
Mourn that.
Re:Mourn this... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Mourn this... (Score:3, Interesting)
They've only been holding back since, oh, 2000 or so to enhance the dramatic effect.
Um, the G4 core has always been close to twice as fast clock-for-clock than the Pentium 4. The problem with the G4 has been the slow I/O bus... a
Re:Mourn this... (Score:5, Insightful)
This leads to the fundamental point, which is economics. Sure. But do you remember how it took a year to scale from 450 to 500 MHz? And how it's been tooth-and-nail for every extra cycle since? The G4 was always the "better" CPU, but the P4 consistently ran at more than twice the frequency. Even today, the race stands at 3.8 vs. 1.67. Freescale has barely managed incremental upgrades to the G4, while Intel has been plowing along with a variety of architectures, one of which was bound to not suck. The M is 70% faster per clock than the P4, already runs at much faster clockspeed than the G4, and is scheduled to be dual-core in the same timeframe as Freescale's e600.
Mot/Freescale has, since 2000, shown the classic symptoms of a company trying to compete in a capital- and R&D-intensive industry without sufficient resources. In reality, they haven't been trying to compete - they focus very effectively in the embedded market, which has had just enough overlap with Apple's designs to enable dual-use products. But the embedded market still has different economics and incentives than the PC market, and Apple's suffered enormously for that. IBM's motivations for diving in with the 970 remain obscure, but may have been marketing as much as anything else. Having secured their spot as manufacturer for every next-gen console CPU, they have little incentive to both keep up with Intel (who's going to buy these chips, and who else are they trying to impress?) and invest the cash to differentiate the 970 (for use in what else, consoles? IBM laptops?). There's just nothing in it for them. And the next-gen console chips are great, but they're subject to console-chip rules. Apple would be insane to bet their business on them.
For better or worse, Intel is the only major supplier of PC CPUs in the world - aside from AMD, which shares a common platform, anyway. It was only inertia that made the switch seem unthinkable - it was really inevitable.
Re:Mourn this... (Score:5, Interesting)
But do you remember how [the G4] took a year to scale from 450 to 500 MHz?
Don't try and snow me, man, I'm not making a dramatic or surprising announcement here, this is a totally conservative prediction.
It's shipping at 1.67 now. That would already be faster than a 3 GHz P4 except for the damn 166 MHz bus. There is absolutely no risk in predicting better performance from an e600 than from a 3 GHz P4, because Freescale doesn't have to do anything extraordinary to make that happen.
The M is 70% faster per clock than the P4. That still means it's slower per clock than the e600. And the e600 will run existing Mac OS code native, not under emulation.
Remember, we're talking about what use Apple can make of the Pentium M or the MPC8461. Not what the Pentium M can do in a laptop that already exists running software that's already compiled for it and optimised for it, because that's not what Apple has.
Maybe this is their last gasp. Maybe they'll process-shrink it to 2 GHz by this time next year, I don't know, but when someone starts talking about the "G5 Laptop" as if that or the Pentium M are the only options... well, hell man, that's just not the case and you know it.
Mot/Freescale has, since 2000, shown the classic symptoms of a company trying to compete in a capital- and R&D-intensive industry without sufficient resources.
And yet despite that they've managed to keep clocking up the short-pipeline G4 and keeping the core within spitting distance of Intel's MUCH more expensive effort. And what's been holding them back? A frigging socket!
Now they've come up with a damn good solution to that, Apple pulls out. And you're telling me that's their fault?
Intel has been plowing along with a variety of architectures, one of which was bound to not suck.
Intel has precisely two architectures right now. The P4 core, and the old P6 core. Everything they're shipping is a variant of one or the other of these. Whether they call it Celeron or Pentium 4 or Pentium Mobile, it's one or the other of these two designs.
That's one more core than either IBM or Motorola/Freescale, yes, but despite having all the resources and all the time and all the talent of two major former competitors in hand... they're still barely ahead. And they've screwed up badly before... they got the StongArm from DEC and developed a successor that was barely faster at twice the clock rate.
Yes, the odds favor them. But the odds have favored them for years and they haven't managed a clear victory... ever. They've marketed and made deals and bluffed their way out every time. That's how they beat Alpha, that's how they beat MIPS, that's how they beat PA/RISC. They convinced people they were unbeatable, like they've convinced you they were unbeatable, and when they've shown their hands it's been a pair of Itanics.
For better or worse, Intel is the only major supplier of PC CPUs in the world
As of Monday, yes, that's absolutely true.
But that would have been try no matter when Apple pulled the plug. They would have done it in 1997 if they thought they could get away with it: that's when Rhapsody was announced as the Macified version of NeXTSTeP. They would have done it in 2000 or 2001 if they'd been able to swing people over to the original plan for Rhapsody, instead of having to come up with Carbon as a stopgap to keep the ISVs from revolting. None of what you're saying now was any less true back then.
All I'm saying is that there's no other reason to do this NOW, rather than in 2001, or 2003, or 2007, other than Apple's got enough market share and cash to risk it now, and they've got enough developers on the NeXTstep-derived API that they can risk losing a few of the ones still coding to MacOS-derived Carbon for whom conversion is too much of a hurdle.
Common logical fallacy in the article (Score:5, Insightful)
All of which makes me wonder ... (Score:2)
I'm offended! (Score:2)
If you read far enough down (Score:5, Informative)
I want to know what Kheit and the other naysayers think Apple's options were. Motorola failed to deliver on faster chips and IBM has such a huge cash cow with the CPU business for the new X-box and PS/3 that you have to wonder how much effort they'd be willing to make to produce faster desktop chips for Apple.
Apple is already falling behind in the laptop world, for $1000 less than Apple sells their top of the line G4 laptop I can get a Toshiba with a 17" screen, built-in wireless, super drive, 100Gb hard drive, 3.33 Ghz CPU and 533Mhz front side bus. OK, sure, megahertz comparisons are hard but when you're comparing two CPUs and one of them is clocked twice as fast and has a faster front side bus then it's pretty much over. Sure, the Toshiba is a brick compared to the PowerMac 17" (although it's a very solid brick, I've owned Toshibas and like them quite a bit) but if you don't want a brick with a huge screen you have smaller and lighter options.
I'm not really happy about this decision but the naysayers such as Kheit aren't saying anything other than "we're pissed off because we're losing the PowerPC", they certainly aren't offering any kind of alternative strategy for what Apple could have done instead of switching CPU architectures. Perhaps they'd be happier if Apple continued on as a sort of red-headed bastard step-child of IBM and Freescale and faded into obscurity as their CPU offerings became less and less relevant and less and less competitive to what Intel and AMD were offering.
Evangelist +asshole = hits = ad profits (Score:2)
No, but a website that runs a article designed to insite a nuclear flame war, and written by a man who could be described as the love child between John Dvorak and Satan is guarenteed to generate a shitload of hits from said evangelists who plan on posting a lot of their own scathing articles of this article.
But in this day and age of the web, links and hits mean profits, specifically from ads. Hits simply drive up ad revenue, and
This assumes it was "cool" to begin with (Score:2)
Hurt the popularity? (Score:2)
I remember when they found out that Linus Torvalds had had some techincal critique of OS X. In the timespan on 10 minutes, Torvalds was transformed from OK guy in to complete asshole, mediocre programmer, a dictator and complete moron who doesn't know what he's talking about,
I think his article (Score:5, Insightful)
This article doesn't know what it wants to be.
Article Mod -1: Flamebait (Score:3, Funny)
And in this cor-nah, wearing helicopter hats, weighing in at an unknown, global weight, with an unknown record but lots of How-To's, are tha Linux Zealots.
And in that cor-nah, wearing ties, weighing in at an 800 haaaaairy lbs, is the gorilla itself, Middle Management.
And in the fah cor-nah, laughing their asses off, is Microsoft.
Let's get ready to ruuuuuuuummmmmbbbbblllleeeeee.....!!!!
My favorite part of Slashdot these days is all the FUD. I mean, with the Apple-to-Intel stuff, how many more Gross Conceptual Errors can there possibly be in one article??? Come on people! Keep it up! This shit is hi-larious!
O Google, Where Art Thou? (Score:2)
Why is Apple still here...? (Score:2)
That sums it up pretty well (Score:2)
Can't sell Intel Macs until... (Score:2)
1: No speed increases in PPC Macs for the next year, unless they are very expensive models that won't compete with mainstream Intel boxes when they're introduced.
2: Give Intel a year to catch up, which is a generation in computer processor years.
Conclusion: It's going to be a tough year to be a Mac owner.
Second Conclusion
Fun and games (Score:2)
Of course the world generally credits the 68k->PPC transition as one of the best handled ever, but that could _never_ work twice, right? I mean, after all, it _didn't_ work once, so that must mean it can never work.
That's not the last "switch" folks. (Score:3, Interesting)
1. From Objective-C to something faster and less brain damaged. Let's face it, there's NO tangible benefit to using Objective-C. None. It's just an additional cost and pain in the ass.
2. From microkernel to something less taxing in IPC department. Otherwise app startup times and multithreaded app performance will remain as crappy as they are now.
3. From 32 bit to 64 bit for UI apps. Right now only console apps can be 64 bit.
And you're gonna pay every step of the way.
does it run linux? (Score:3, Funny)
does it run linux?
if so.. cool..
otherwise, I sheet on it!!
</linux_zealot_mode>
game performance (Score:5, Insightful)
>aforementioned "3-5 year" period and claim that the games demand the "performance" of the faster Intel
>machines. We already saw that when Doom 3 was released for the Mac. It supported only the very fastest
>Macs while leaving many other current and/or new Macs out in the lurch.
Does he think we just sit around and say "Lets just not support the rest of these macs because we want to screw the user base!"
We work with Apple, ATI, and Nvidia to make everything run as well as possible. Doom 3 had AltiVec code in it, and there were driver changes to make things work better. The bottom line is that the compiler / cpu / system / graphics card combinations available for macs has just never been as fast as the equivalent x86/windows systems. The performance gap is not a myth or the result of malicious developers trying to make your platform of choice look bad.
Yes, it is always possible to make an application faster, but expecting developers to work harder on the mac platform than on windows is not reasonable. The xbox version of Doom required extensive effort in both programming and content to get good performance, but it was justified because of the market. In hindsight, we probably should have waited and ported the xbox version of the game to the mac, which would have played on a broader range of hardware. Of course, then we would have taken criticism for only giving the mac community the "crippled, cut down version".
John Carmack
All fundamentalist types... (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean like Linux.
Bah, Here we go again. He's an attorney... (Score:3, Informative)
1. Software vendors will abandon support for PPC machines as soon as it makes business sense to do so.
Of course, but here's the thing : in the very, very, very vast majority of cases, it won't make sense. Comparing the situation to NeXT is a bit silly ( unless you'd like to compare numbers of installed users, see my point yet? ). If someone decides to stop supporting PPC, it means their product has somehow become Intel-specific ( how? ) and they have a small PPC install base, _and_ don't want the existing PPC customers. That should be pretty rare, really. I'd like to see the numbers of NeXT vendors that dropped 68k support and kept Intel support, anyway; I don't think that number is as high as this guy claims.
2. Software vendors will charge you money for Intel (or PPC) versions of software when it makes business sense to do so.
They'll happen either as upgrades or as new versions of software. You'd pay for those anyway. Yes, people buying Intel macs and wanting native performance will end up buying lots of new software. Duh. Guess what happens with every OS switch? Of course, if performance is acceptable, you can probably put off that software purchase for quite a while... initial reports show Rosetta getting pretty decent performance, so this could be less of an issue. Even if it is, is it a reason to not buy a Mac today? It sounds like more of a reason to not buy an Intel Mac if you already own a PPC Mac.
3. Apple has shown it drops support for old products regularly because it makes business sense to do so.
Like every other company on the planet? Yet, with the tools in place to make builds for PPC a single checkbox away, it should be some time before simply using that check box doesn't make business sense. Let's see... when exactly did NeXT stop supporting 68k hardware, since that's what he's comparing this to? Was there ever an NeXTStep for Intel release without a matching 68k release? Ok, I know... there weren't many of the first, but it was pretty easy for them to keep 68k support, and they did.
4. Macs tended to have a far longer life-span than the average PC.
Yea... and this changes how ? Right now, a dual G5 is right up there with a top-of-the-line PC ( well, except maybe for the graphics card, maybe ) and will still compare to that same PC... his prediction is that in 2 years today's PCs will be obsolete? Wow. Stunning.
5. The new Intel machines promise to be much faster than current machines.
Huh. That's the reason for the switch right there in a nutshell, isn't it?
6. People do not buy computers only for how it will serve them today, but for how capable it will be in serving them for their desired term of use.
uh... as compared to _other_ computers available to buy _today_. If I _can_ put off buying a computer, I'm going to; tomorrow will always provide faster computers at lower prices. If I can't ( say, I'm a student starting college this fall... or a business which just hired a new employee... or I just need a computer to handle my digital photos ), well, I'm likely to buy one now rather than wait a year. Better ones will be here in the future, but that's not terribly relevant today. If I want to run OS X, this doesn't deter me from buying a PPC mac unless I can wait anyway. In which case, I was going to maybe wait anyway for a year. For that relatively small group of users that can wait for a year, sure, Apple will parlay those users into pent-up demand for their first Intel machines. That's somehow bad for Apple?
7. Potentially no Classic support.
I thought he was looking for reasons why people won't buy more PPCs? If you want Classic support, you'll run out and stockpile PPC Macs. Believe me, though... few people want it. This publishing industry he's talking about don't represent that many computers... and it does represent a business that sets up systems and never, ever replaces the
BOZO, indeed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Jesus Christ, people, give it a rest.
You know what? Giving Apple the benefit of the doubt that they've actually, y'know, put some thought into this decision and aren't just doing it because they think x86 chips will look prettier in those brushed aluminum cases isn't blind zealotry. Saying that, yes, you'll be willing to look at Intel Macs when they come out isn't blind zealotry. But rending your clothes and beating your chest and screaming, "No! Never! I'll keep my PowerMac until you pry my cold, dead fingers from my mouse, and goddammit, my mouse has only one button!"
Mr. Kheit, for your long and distinguished service in saying "Hell No, We Won't Go" to every single change Apple has made, I award you the Big Red Clown Nose of Bozo Punditry.
(And, don't worry, Dvorak fans! I have faith he'll reclaim it soon.)
for what it's worth (Score:3, Interesting)
The first is the more sincere user who is having a hard time figuring out what to think about the move.
The other says this was unquestionably a good move, and Jobs is, once again, steering the company right. (Forget the fact that these are the same people who defended PPC as vastly superior to x86 just a month ago.)
An example of the second type would be a guy I knew who at our company who has a habit of overstepping his bounds. He got really upset at us for buying Spruce DVD authoring systems because they were NT-based, and not going with Sonic, which was Mac-based. When Apple bought Spruce to make DVD Studio Pro 2, he told me, "You know, in retrospect Spruce was the way to go because Apple wouldn't purchase a dead-end company."
(This guy also told me regarding one of our vendors, "They're expensive, but they're coming along.")
As an example of the second type of Machead, here's a recent email thread I had with a recovering Mac zealot:
>>> This is an interesting theory that answers your random complaints...
>>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609
>>>
>>> -b. smith
>> Thanks for the laugh.
>>
>> To cite a Slashdot post on the issue:
>> When a company with 30B USD market cap becomes a part of a company with 170B USD market cap it's called an acquisition, not a "merger."
>>
>> --j
>>
>>
>
> I think the guy went over the edge... but it was an interesting theory.
>
> Although, it seems like the vast majority of the Mac Community is supporting Jobs' move. Does this guy have too much power over our hearts and minds? You would say yes.
>
> -b. smith
>
>
Ah, my son. The moment you asked that question, you took your first step into a larger world.
Despite all the moaning, Intel move had to be done (Score:3, Insightful)
Quite simply IBM was not competetive, had very little driving it to be competetive with general desktop CPU's. To hang on in hopes of better days ahead would have been easy destructive way out.
Now Apple will NEVER again have to worry about having to fall behind on the CPU curve. It can tap the dominant x86 rivalry to always get the best chips going.
There are added bonuses of common architecture for code porters, and better migration paths (dual boot/wine) for windows escapees.
I have never purchased an Apple Product before, so I don't think I am subject to the reported Steve Jobs RDF, but I am keen on this move and the possability of getting an x86 Mac.
Helps (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, I'm a Mac zealot, and I've convinced 4 or 5 people who were fed up with there shit-riddled Windows boxes to switch to Macs. They've never been happier, and tell their friends about it. So...it helps.
The only people Mac zealots piss off are PC guys who know, in their heart of hearts, that OS X is waaaay better than anything that will ever ooze its way out of Redmond.
Speaking Of Zealots... The Megahertz Myth Video (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, CHRIST. Evangelism??? PCs are just TOOLS. (Score:3, Insightful)
Computers are JUST TOOLS that help you accomplish useful tasks. That's it, guys. They're not religious artifacts, they're not fetish items, they're just the equivalent of a good set of socket wrenches.
You should choose the best tools available to you at the point when you're buying them, and you should try and squeeze some mileage out of them (this means, don't buy new tools every couple of years! Mechanics don't replace all their wrenches every two years, do they?).
Mac O/S is an excellent tool. So is Linux. The two are essentially interchangeable, given that Mac O/S is somewhat better at working with media files, and Linux is somewhat better for software development, especially web development.
Of course, whereas Mac O/S and Linux are roughly equivalent to Craftsman or Snap-On, well... Microsoft is kind of like the cheapo tools from Taiwan you see on Canal Street. They work, but they break a lot, and they don't have as fine a finish. Still, I suppose you might find a use for them.
Whatever! Back to the point! Relax, everybody! This shit isn't life and death, it's not even Red, white or Sangria! REEEEELLLLAAAAXXXXX!
I believe now its the best time to buy macs (Score:3, Interesting)
Hurt. (Score:4, Interesting)
To answer that question, simply look at the extremely slow adoption rate of desktop Linux, which has more crazed zealots than any OS ever has or likely ever will.
Re:Helps, not hurts (Score:2)
Re:It's NOT a 4-pentium-4 box (Score:2)
Did you open up the box? If not, for all you know it COULD have been a dual-core hyper-threaded P4EE, which makes for 4 virtual processors. It's not like Steve couldn't have afforded the top-of-the-line Intel p4, you know.
So if anyone has reliable info on what was in the box, please speak up - model numbers and all.
Re:It's NOT a 4-pentium-4 box (Score:3, Interesting)
Looks to me [anandtech.com] like there's no hyphen at all.
No causal relationship (Score:3, Informative)
Let's look closer at those numbers (per your link.)
Year...Share.....units (millions)
1991....11.2.........2.1
1992....12. .
1993....10...........3.3 - PowerPC announced
1994....9.4..........3.8 - PowerPC shipped
1995....9............4.5
1996....5.1....
2004.....2.0..........3.5
Apple's market share peaked two years before PowerPC. It was in decline for two years before PowerPC. From the