rawrj said:Seriously, with all the positive attention Apple is getting over the last few months, the Windows related businesses may be wondering what is in the future. Michael Dell isn't stupid, he may see writting on the wall. To be sure the inertia of all the Windows users will keep things going for a long time, but I am seeing more and more switchers in my circle of friends and acquaintances.
Um, unlike all those other computer manufacturers that develop their own CPUs? That would be, um, IBM, and they only do it for serious server equipment.Rius666 said:They can't develop their CPU's either.
Intel spanks AMD in mobile computing CPUs, and that's what Apple needs right now. The G5 is a great chip for tower use, but it's too hot and power-hungry to stick in a laptop, and Intel is where it's at in portable machines right now.By switching to intel Job's hopes to lower the prices on his Macs and at the same time add a little more punch to their computers in terms on power-per-watt. This is ironic b/c we all know AMD is much better than INTEL in that department . They probably chose to partner with INTEL for the marketability/money reasons.
I totally agree. However, these older Macs do not sell software. They often run older versions of MacOS, and the users aren't rushing out to purchase the latest version of "whatever".The fact is, Apple's market share on computer sales is around 2-4% (figures vary), but their total share of all personal computers currently in use is about 10-13%. This surprising statistic is due to the fact that on average, Macintosh computers don't break down or become as obselete as similar computers turned out by Dell, HP, Compaq, and the rest, which means the average Mac user has to replace his/her hardware only about one-third as much as his/her Windows-using counterpart.
Hardly. Cooked benchmarks or 'selected Photoshop filters' do not prove that at clock parity, the G5 can compete with the x86's strongest. Not to mention that in order to get even remotely close, Apple had to saddle the dual G5 with a liquid cooling system; only the priciest of boutique PC's come with liquid based cooling.As for the accusations of overpriced hardware, the lack of low-end Macs does not mean that their hardware is overpriced. If you look at their computers, Macs have comparable hardware to mid- and high-level PCs, and until recently they didn't really offer that many models to compete in the low-end desktop market (stuff that the Mac mini and the eMac are meant to address).
There's a certain mythology associated with the PPC. Ooh, it's Mac and different, therefore it must be a better CPU. It's not, actually. It barely keeps up with Intel, and even I'll admit that Intel got spanked during this round of the x86 wars.As for the CPUs, rumors and insider info has been hinting that the reason for the recent Intel switch was due to the fact that IBM wasn't devoting as much energy to developing the G5 as much as they had initially promised, so eventually Apple decided to go with a company that was more devoted to increasing processor speed. I personally feel that it is a shame, because the current G5 processor is a very nice piece of technology.
Yeah, but they're comparing After Effects on the two platforms. If you give a film pro a choice of AE on a 1337 Windows machine or FCP on a fast dual G5, that pro isn't going to boil his choice down to a bunch of Internet genital-measuring like that site.Steel_Avatar said:Macolytes often go on about how Macs are a superior platform for video-editing. Yet even these folks say that the G5 only holds up against a PC eight months older. Digital Video Editing is hardly a 'pro-PC' website, either. They are in fact somewhat Mac-centric. Given that the PC they used was a dual-Xeon rig, I'd hate to see what an AMD based setup would do, or even a P4 based system.
Shrug. Get the hardware you need for the software you've got to have. If AE is your weapon of choice, x86 it up!Steel_Avatar said:Of course not. My point was that when running the same app, the G5 barely holds up.
Yeha, that's pretty much a given. So long as Apple makes that kind of promise, MS will be very happy to see that market segment grow . . . It means lots of sales of Office 2004 and VPC and Windows XP, especially once those latter two start running much closer to native speed on the Intel chips.Steel_Avatar said:I actually wouldn't be surprised if MS was in on this deal. Think about it. Apple moves to x86. Before they can do that, they need to ensure that Adobe and MS are willing to port their apps over. MS probably said: Okay, as long as you restrict OS X86 to Apple hardware, and not commodity hardware.