Are you happy about the Intel switch?

schweb · schweb #1 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 08:28 PM

Are you happy about the Intel switch?

dtravis7 · dtravis7 #2 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 08:33 PM

With IBM putting off Jobs for 3.0Ghz and a G5 for the Powerbooks, To me it's the only thing Jobs could have done. People were getting ansy for a G5 Laptop for sure. I would rather have had an AMD CPU in the new Macs but I doubt AMD could keep up with the added demand that Apple would need. As long as they keep OSX for Macs only, I am for the switch. Something clearly had to be done. Also I bet Jobs was a bit bent by Intel making a 3 Core 3.2Ghz CPU for the XBox 2 also.

PowerBookG4 · PowerBookG4 #3 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 08:39 PM

I am all for the switch, I don't even think we will be able to notice a performance decrease.

iWhat · iWhat #4 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 08:52 PM

I'll just put it like this. I don't think that I'll be losing any sleep over it anytime soon, and I trust Apple to make the right choices down the road.

iMe · iMe #5 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 08:53 PM

I'm all for it too...Even though I'm thinking in my head about Apple + AMD, I'm pretty sure Apple made the perfect move. Kudos to Apple!!!

Kokopelli · Kokopelli #6 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 08:56 PM

Honestly I am apathetic. PPC or x86, it's all about software and performance for me. I think for the kind of tasks I do x86 is good and Apple has made a reasonable effort to ensure that there will be software. Don't screw up OS X and the platform becomes a question of economics for me.

Upon reflection I guess I am a little happy. PPC may be the better CPU from a technical standpoint but I think the alliance with Intel makes for a more dynamic road going forward. Especially when you put AMD into the equation.

I guess we will find out if it was a wise business decision in a decade or so.

D3v1L80Y · D3v1L80Y #7 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 09:05 PM

I didn't vote....because quite frankly, it doesn't matter what proc the Mac uses to me. I mean look at the Keynote from WWDC...Jobs was using a Pentium Mac the whole time, and nobody knew. It wasn't until he brought up the computer info and told everyone that you could see the difference. I seriously doubt that if anyone here was given two Macs, identical in every say, save for the processor that they could tell the difference between the two without pulling up the system info or opening the case.

So, none of the poll options fit me...there should be one for "makes no difference to me" or "doesn't matter" :black:

witeshark · witeshark #8 (**permalink**)

06-11-2005, 11:18 PM

I just fine with it. As said, I think it means better progress to faster CPU and will do Apple well in the long term

Maccraft · Maccraft #9 (**permalink**)

06-12-2005, 09:15 AM

Yes I'm for it and excited about it, I think it is a wise yet a bit risky marketing decision and it will make playing games on lower end Macs a worth while experience. Although Phil Schiller (Apple Senior Vice President) said Mac OS wont run on PCs I think that it could still happen, in fact I want it to happen. Apple is doing reasonably well at the moment and with the few extra bucks and publicity they have got from the iPod, I think now would be the time for apple to take the risk and strike at Microsoft. Who knows maybe in the next 15 years or so Microsoft may not own the desktop.........Just image that.............

Cloudane · Cloudane #10 (**permalink**)

06-12-2005, 10:00 AM

Don't know yet. Anything can happen!

Tel · Tel #11 (**permalink**)

06-15-2005, 09:43 PM

I'm perfectly happy with it, as long as Mac OS will only run on Apple hardware, I think I would get annoyed by all the Windows users trying to convince me its a peice of crap because it wont run very well on their low spec PC's

PowerBookG4 · PowerBookG4 #12 (**permalink**)

06-15-2005, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tel

I'm perfectly happy with it, as long as Mac OS will only run on Apple hardware, I think I would get annoyed by all the Windows users trying to convince me its a peice of crap because it wont run very well on their low spec PC's

but then you could show them how well it runs on very well built apple products.

Colin Barnhorst · Colin Barnhorst #13 (**permalink**)

06-16-2005, 10:48 PM

Better performance with less power consumption means good things for Apple. A dual core 64-bit Pentium M based laptop will do well in the marketplace.

stillimation · stillimation #14 (**permalink**)

06-17-2005, 06:38 PM

ever PC fan knows that intel is the thing that you want least, it is very unreliable and they get really freaking hot really fast. i think that it is a very stupid idea what apple is doing

AppleFreak · AppleFreak #15 (**permalink**)

06-19-2005, 01:24 PM

I believe it is a good idea because if Apple didn't make this transformation in 2 yrs Apple probablly won't exist.

View Poll Results: Are you happy about the Intel switch?
Yes	57	41.30%
No	20	14.49%
I don't know yet	61	44.20%
Voters: 138. You may not vote on this poll

schweb #1 (permalink)
Member Since: Oct 27, 2002 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Posts: 13,213 Mac Specs: MacBook Pro \| LED Cinema Display \| iPhone 4 \| iPad 2	06-11-2005, 08:28 PM Are you happy about the Intel switch? schweb \| community leader flickr » facebook » twitter » tumblr » google+ » about.me Mac-Forums: On Twitter \| On Facebook \| On Flickr
	QUOTE Thanks

dtravis7 #2 (permalink)
Member Since: Jan 04, 2005 Location: Modesto, Ca. Posts: 25,895 Mac Specs: iMac C2D Late 2007 20" with 10.8.3, Macbook Santa Rosa 4GB Ram OSX 10.8.3	06-11-2005, 08:33 PM With IBM putting off Jobs for 3.0Ghz and a G5 for the Powerbooks, To me it's the only thing Jobs could have done. People were getting ansy for a G5 Laptop for sure. I would rather have had an AMD CPU in the new Macs but I doubt AMD could keep up with the added demand that Apple would need. As long as they keep OSX for Macs only, I am for the switch. Something clearly had to be done. Also I bet Jobs was a bit bent by Intel making a 3 Core 3.2Ghz CPU for the XBox 2 also. ...Dennis Mac-Forums Community Guidelines
	QUOTE Thanks

D3v1L80Y #7 (permalink)
Member Since: Feb 02, 2004 Location: PA Posts: 12,455 Mac Specs: MacBook	06-11-2005, 09:05 PM I didn't vote....because quite frankly, it doesn't matter what proc the Mac uses to me. I mean look at the Keynote from WWDC...Jobs was using a Pentium Mac the whole time, and nobody knew. It wasn't until he brought up the computer info and told everyone that you could see the difference. I seriously doubt that if anyone here was given two Macs, identical in every say, save for the processor that they could tell the difference between the two without pulling up the system info or opening the case. So, none of the poll options fit me...there should be one for "makes no difference to me" or "doesn't matter" :black: __________________________________________________ Posting and YOU\|Forum Community Guidelines\|The Apple Product Cycle\|Forum Courtesy mac: a waterproof raincoat made of rubberized fabric MAC: a data communication protocol sub-layer, also known as the Media Access Control Mac: a brand name which covers several lines of personal computers designed, developed, and marketed by Apple Inc.
	QUOTE Thanks

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
KVM switch problems with G3 upgraded PowerCenter Pro	RajaZoie	Apple Desktops	1	11-28-2008 05:34 PM
Mac mini and KVM Switch	tomtheheretic	Apple Desktops	8	04-06-2005 01:21 AM
Dvorak: Apple to go Intel within 18 Months	schweb	Apple Rumors and Reports	48	04-03-2005 06:04 PM
An accidental switch.	Desolate One	Switcher Hangout	4	10-25-2004 08:40 PM
Intel CEO on Mac OS X port, Apple market share	Murlyn	Apple Rumors and Reports	9	10-24-2003 12:40 PM

Are you happy about the Intel switch?

Internet Services

Web Development

Digital Marketing

Consumer Tech

iWhat #4 (permalink)
Member Since: Nov 11, 2004 Location: Toledo, Ohio Posts: 5,761 Mac Specs: Macbook, iMac G5, iPad, iPhone 4, iPod (MANY)!	06-11-2005, 08:52 PM I'll just put it like this. I don't think that I'll be losing any sleep over it anytime soon, and I trust Apple to make the right choices down the road.
	QUOTE Thanks

iMe #5 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	06-11-2005, 08:53 PM I'm all for it too...Even though I'm thinking in my head about Apple + AMD, I'm pretty sure Apple made the perfect move. Kudos to Apple!!!
	QUOTE Thanks

Kokopelli #6 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	06-11-2005, 08:56 PM Honestly I am apathetic. PPC or x86, it's all about software and performance for me. I think for the kind of tasks I do x86 is good and Apple has made a reasonable effort to ensure that there will be software. Don't screw up OS X and the platform becomes a question of economics for me. Upon reflection I guess I am a little happy. PPC may be the better CPU from a technical standpoint but I think the alliance with Intel makes for a more dynamic road going forward. Especially when you put AMD into the equation. I guess we will find out if it was a wise business decision in a decade or so.
	QUOTE Thanks

witeshark #8 (permalink)
Member Since: Mar 09, 2004 Location: Miami FL Posts: 2,860 Mac Specs: G4 1Ghz OS X 10.4.7	06-11-2005, 11:18 PM I just fine with it. As said, I think it means better progress to faster CPU and will do Apple well in the long term
	QUOTE Thanks

Maccraft #9 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	06-12-2005, 09:15 AM Yes I'm for it and excited about it, I think it is a wise yet a bit risky marketing decision and it will make playing games on lower end Macs a worth while experience. Although Phil Schiller (Apple Senior Vice President) said Mac OS wont run on PCs I think that it could still happen, in fact I want it to happen. Apple is doing reasonably well at the moment and with the few extra bucks and publicity they have got from the iPod, I think now would be the time for apple to take the risk and strike at Microsoft. Who knows maybe in the next 15 years or so Microsoft may not own the desktop.........Just image that.............
	QUOTE Thanks

Cloudane #10 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	06-12-2005, 10:00 AM Don't know yet. Anything can happen!
	QUOTE Thanks

Tel #11 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	06-15-2005, 09:43 PM I'm perfectly happy with it, as long as Mac OS will only run on Apple hardware, I think I would get annoyed by all the Windows users trying to convince me its a peice of crap because it wont run very well on their low spec PC's
	QUOTE Thanks

Colin Barnhorst #13 (permalink)
Guest Posts: n/a	06-16-2005, 10:48 PM Better performance with less power consumption means good things for Apple. A dual core 64-bit Pentium M based laptop will do well in the marketplace.
	QUOTE Thanks

stillimation #14 (permalink)
Member Since: Oct 25, 2004 Posts: 182	06-17-2005, 06:38 PM ever PC fan knows that intel is the thing that you want least, it is very unreliable and they get really freaking hot really fast. i think that it is a very stupid idea what apple is doing
	QUOTE Thanks

AppleFreak #15 (permalink)
Member Since: Jun 19, 2005 Posts: 2	06-19-2005, 01:24 PM I believe it is a good idea because if Apple didn't make this transformation in 2 yrs Apple probablly won't exist.
	QUOTE Thanks

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)