Prepressforums.com

geozinger · #11 (**permalink**) 06-13-2005, 12:02 PM

Anybody here remember the switch from 68XXX to PPC? I think this will be similar.

But it still kind of p*sses me off. I just got everything (almost) converted to OSX, and now we get to go thru another switch. I can't wait to run all of my programs in emulation again (read SLOW!). :evil:

To an extent, this move is good for Apple. I'm not sure of the net result for users. I really think that this will blow some people out. I know I'd be happier not having to do the emulation shuffle...

rhctp · #12 (**permalink**) 06-14-2005, 04:34 AM

I think this is really going to put apple at a disadvantage. The X86 chip can't run graphically designed programs as fast as the IBM chip Hence all of the benchmark test done with the release of the G5 chip compared to the Xeon chip. The other issue is that with the speeds the chips are getting now they are getting to a breaking point with heat (which is really holding Intel back). If it were me I would have chosen to go with AMD rather than Intel. Intel's speeds are always extremely overrated, and they have had a longtime partnership with Microsoft.

tmazzullo_splat · #13 (**permalink**) 06-23-2005, 08:40 AM

I agrre with the previous post. Apple has been lacking in speed of its chips and needed water cooling just to reach 2.7 Ghz. I really wish they would have selected AMD also. 8)

Vinny · #14 (**permalink**) 06-23-2005, 11:26 AM

The only thing the bothers me about the switch is I think this will make us more vulnerable to virus attacks. I don't want to have to run anti virus all the time.

geozinger · #15 (**permalink**) 06-23-2005, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny

The only thing the bothers me about the switch is I think this will make us more vulnerable to virus attacks. I don't want to have to run anti virus all the time.

Virus, Trojans, worms, all are OS based, not chipset based. If Mac keeps OSX the way it is now into the Intel transition, then it will be very hard to get hosed.

The main reason Windows is so bad, is because programs can be installed in the background without your knowledge. Very hard to do that on *nix...

Don't you remember the virii for the old Mac OS?

<sarcasm> My favorite was the one that used to infect Zip disks. What fun was that?! Oh, the other good one was the one that would set your clock back to 1904 and hose the creation date of all of your files... that was fun too...NOT! :twisted:</sarcasm>

Vinny · #16 (**permalink**) 06-23-2005, 12:57 PM

I do remember the getting a virus from a zip disk way back. I just think that people will start targeting Macs more since they are moving in that 'Satan Inside' direction.

geozinger · #17 (**permalink**) 06-23-2005, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinny

I do remember the getting a virus from a zip disk way back. I just think that people will start targeting Macs more since they are moving in that 'Satan Inside' direction.

'Insmell Inside' isn't really going to change much in terms of hacks and exploits on the Mac side. We were spoiled with OS9, because no one bothered to make any virii after about 1998. Actually there has been an increase of exploits on the OSX side. Do you remember last fall when a company called Sophos floated a press release showing that OSX could be vulnerable to a virus-like attack? The OSX community about had a stroke over that little incident.

IIRC, was there was a way to spoof settings in OSX on web pages viewed in Internet Explorer. And, there was some Java or Javascript function you had to disable, and you were golden. There are (supposedly) many other exploits, but Apple releases security updates pretty frequently, and even so, it's real hard to get something to execute/install without your permission.

I'm sure there's some wonker out there with nothing better to do in their lives looking for a way to krack OSX, but Intel or PPC, I think they've got their work cut out for them.

The thing I don't like about Mac-tel, is that we will spend time in emulator-land again. Like we did from 68K to PPC, and then OS9 to OSX. I didn't like my first visits to emulator-land, and I'm not really looking forward to doing it again. Maybe someday Apple will get back to making Macs that have cool peripherals rather than cool peripherals that happen to use Macs. :roll:

Mark · #18 (**permalink**) 06-30-2005, 06:01 AM

I'm afraid this will kill the macintosh, and Apple will just become an iPod company. Its all because of the stupid misunderstood MHz race.

I'll take a 2GHz IBM Mac over a 4GHz Intel Pee Sea any day.

Vinny · #19 (**permalink**) 06-30-2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Its all because of the stupid misunderstood MHz race.

I remember Steve Jobs calling this the MegaHertz myth. :?: :?

Quote:

I'll take a 2GHz IBM Mac over a 4GHz Intel Pee Sea any day.

Amen, Brother.

That's Pee Cee to me.

zox · #20 (**permalink**) 06-30-2005, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mark

I'm afraid this will kill the macintosh, and Apple will just become an iPod company. Its all because of the stupid misunderstood MHz race.

I'll take a 2GHz IBM Mac over a 4GHz Intel Pee Sea any day.

Well, I think you nailed it here.
It looks like most of the revenue for Apple is coming from an Ipod/Itunes side so this is where they want to push even more.

I think this could be an desperate attempt to save Mac and possibly get some market share.
While they said MacOSX will be locked to Apple hardware, nobody said that hardware has to come directly from Apple.

Look at the Ipods, Hp makes them too under Apple licence, what do you think about HP/Apple/Intel Mac?

(just an speculation) :wink: