Intel Macs are here...

Yes and supposedly 4x faster for laptops and 2x for desktops - think I'll soldier on with the old G5 for a while.

Hoping that I can move to from ILife/iWork 05 to 06 without paying the full price, but can't see upgrade details yet.

All this and OS X 10.4.4

If you want unix on Intel then why not save a lot of money and go down the Linux route?

OS X is much nicer to use than Linux and in my experience much more stable. I like Linux, but I prefer it as server rather than for my desktop. Though I can hapily run Red Hat Linux and Amiga OS in Virtual PC windows on my PowerMac G5.

To be honest, I don't really care what chips Apple uses, the resulting package remains the best around. Where Apple scores over Microsoft is in its ability to write good software.

quote:

Originally posted by Steve G:
If you want unix on Intel then why not save a lot of money and go down the Linux route?

Well, what if you want to use Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop? OS X is the only Unix version that has native versions of such mainstream apps. Apparently, lots of engineering types use OS X like a regular Unix (e.g. in command line), and only start up the GUI for Word/Excel.

Tze

quote:

Well, what if you want to use Microsoft Office and Adobe Photoshop?

Use open office and the gimp.

Jim

yep, 4x faster for laptops and 2x for desktops... running intel compiled apps that is...

and what, you ask, is compiled for intel at this point? well, OSX, Mail, Safari, iLife, and the rest of the things that came with your computer probably.

but you say you want to run Photoshop, Office, 3rd party video programs, etc. faster? well that's just tough. those will still be powerpc compiled for a while. and when you want the intel version, it will cost you again. of course you can run the powerpc version on the intel chip, but if you have never dealt with software emulation of a processor before, lets just say you'll be lucky if its barely as fast as the computer you replaced.

that's why Apple only replaced the powerbook and the iMac so far. none of the apps that pros run on G5's are ready for intel yet, so you'd have A LOT of pissed off powermac users who bought themselves a brand new IntelPowerMac and had video rendering and graphics transformation running SLOWER than before.

my advice is DEFINITELY wait for this technology to pan out for a while before purchasing. not just for the reasons above, but any company performing a major processor switch like this can't exactly expect bug-free performance right out of the gate.

I would agree to wait for software development, equally though the spec say that emulation will run apps 30% slower but the macs are still twice as fast if not more, so still faster basically.

Most anyone running photoshop on an iMac or iBook etc is probably running a hacked copy anyway.

Why would you want to use a Microsoft product on a mac?

I thought the whole idea of owning a mac is that it wasnt using Microsoft.

Just out of interest, why has it taken them so long to use an intel processor?

quote:

Originally posted by niceguy235uk:
Why would you want to use a Microsoft product on a mac?

If it's the best and/or industry standard package?

quote:

I thought the whole idea of owning a mac is that it wasnt using Microsoft.

Anyone buying a product just because it's not from Microsoft is a fool. A computer is a tool and should be bought because it's the best (whether that be on the basis of value, ergonomics, performance or compatability) for you and the things you need to do.

quote:

Just out of interest, why has it taken them so long to use an intel processor?

Trying to stay different perhaps, but it's primarily a lack of development in the current processor line and in particular problems with heat buildup (which is why there were no fast Mac laptops) which have forced the change.

quote:

Originally posted by niceguy235uk:
Why would you want to use a Microsoft product on a mac?

I thought the whole idea of owning a mac is that it wasnt using Microsoft.

Just out of interest, why has it taken them so long to use an intel processor?

I have to use Microsoft Office for work (I didn't buy it they did under corporate license) - though for personal use I prefer Pages as Word Procssor, FileMaker as a database and Keynote for presentations. The Microsoft applications are over complex and there is a lot to be said for keeping it simple.

It should be very easy to cross compile applications using XCode, as this has a cross compiler. However, I've not got an Intel platform to test this on.

Why did Apple go Intel - because it had to, IBM took over the PowerPC from Motorola and simply didn't develop it and so it no longer kept ahead of the Intel chip. In theory, a RISC chip like the PowerPC should have always outperformed a complex chip like the Intel Pentium, but it doesn't any longer. It doesn't matter what chips Apple uses, provided they work and what we end up with is a Mac that does what we need it to do.

quote:

Originally posted by ROTF:
In theory, a RISC chip like the PowerPC should have always outperformed a complex chip like the Intel Pentium

That's not stricktly true as they're too different ways of meeting the same targets. It's like making a car go fast - you can either have more horsepower or better streamlining.

In these days of multi-core's etc then it could well be the case that a complex instruction set is even a better option.