Intel-Based Macs

Ok! I've had enough!! I've been reading about all these firmware upgrades of SuperDrive and all the hardware and software problems on Intel-based Macs.... like my MB that suddenly out of the blue the screen goes grayish and there a message in the middle in 4 languages saying I have to turn off the computer and reboot... bla bla bla.... I do believe i'm not the one who thinks that just as one thought got rid of Windows and Intel-based computers Apple suddenly slaps us in the face with their inte-based Macs! Why did they change? Isn't PPC better? I don't know if it because they tried to lower costs. But i'm sure it's one pain in the a** running Mac OS X on an intel-based Mac.

Who else thinks is BS? Mac! Go back to PPC!

Frankly, utter nonsense.

I concur, I have yet to experience any issues.

You have to keep in mind that all of these complaints happen to the minority of Mac owners, and many times happen because of user error.

Oh, and the Intel processors are faster than the PowerPC processors they replaced

100% agree with both Kash & knightlie.

I have switched to Mac in Late April and I've been running it to the ground and knock on wood, its Rock Solid.

I agree that the issues people are having and ranting about are few an far between when compared to the number of people who own Intel machines.

the Intel processors are faster than the PowerPC processors they replaced

Click to expand...

This is a relative thing.
For someone like me, the PPC is still a faster and better option. The thousands of dollars I have in creative software isn't Universal. For me to run it on an Intel machine would cause some minor lag. While this lag is bearable, it would still run slower if I had an Intel machine. I am not ready to plunk down $4000+ for new software and hardware, nor do I really need to. My PowerBook runs just fine and it is top shelf.
Besides, I have seen and used Intel machines (running Universal software) side by side with my PowerBook (running the PPC native ones) at length and I never noticed any discernible, wildly noticeable difference in speed. Yes, the Intel architecture is technically faster, but it all depends on what you are doing and what software you are using. A PPC machine can still hold its own with an Intel and in some cases surpass one in performance.

ok, maybe I was a little exhalted this morning =P loL! i do love my Mac and I wouldn't change it ever. I guess we all have problems with software and hardware, after all nothing is perfect, Mac's are just closer to perfection than anything else

Macs arn't close the perfection !! they are perfect!!

I can remember last year when I concidered a Mac for the first time. I read all the Apple Bumph about how good Macs are . I then started to read forums like this one (The best IMHO cough splutter) only to read about the problems people have. It didn't put me off as I thought that a Forum is where people look for help so you will get a lot of can you help with this and that problem.
There are loads of very happy Mac users out there Myself included. I have now 2 Intel Macs and both are just fine.

As said earlier in this thread I think the switch was due a speed issue

D3v1L80Y said:

I agree that the issues people are having and ranting about are few an far between when compared to the number of people who own Intel machines. This is a relative thing.
For someone like me, the PPC is still a faster and better option. The thousands of dollars I have in creative software isn't Universal. For me to run it on an Intel machine would cause some minor lag. While this lag is bearable, it would still run slower if I had an Intel machine. I am not ready to plunk down $4000+ for new software and hardware, nor do I really need to. My PowerBook runs just fine and it is top shelf.
Besides, I have seen and used Intel machines (running Universal software) side by side with my PowerBook (running the PPC native ones) at length and I never noticed any discernible, wildly noticeable difference in speed. Yes, the Intel architecture is technically faster, but it all depends on what you are doing and what software you are using. A PPC machine can still hold its own with an Intel and in some cases surpass one in performance.

Click to expand...

Tell that to my 2 colleagues that still have PowerBooks...

Once you start working with large amounts of data and apps simultaneously, even mundane stuff is faster on the intel Macs, simply because they have 2 processors.

We use Filemaker, Pages (with large documents that have a lot of embedded media), Mail and our own Apps (TV software) simultaneously on a regular basis and the G4s just aren't cutting it.
I have an iMac G5 at work which copes a fair bit better...


Sure - if you use CS2 a lot then the Powerbook will be the better option... as you said it really depends on your personal usage. Most general purpose tasks are a lot faster on intel though.

Kilted1 said:

It didn't put me off as I thought that a Forum is where people look for help so you will get a lot of can you help with this and that problem.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and this is a very important point - people don't post on here to say how well their Macs are running, they post because they have a problem.

israelvalenciac said:

ok, maybe I was a little exhalted this morning =P loL! i do love my Mac and I wouldn't change it ever. I guess we all have problems with software and hardware, after all nothing is perfect, Mac's are just closer to perfection than anything else

Click to expand...

If you're having kernel panics, then there is certainly a fault - either hardware or software, but it won't be down to the architecture. Apple have had Intel-based Macs running OSX internally for years, they wouldn't have released them if they were that bad.

And DevilBoy speaks wise words (for a mod ) - speed is very much a relative term. That's why the clock speed war between Intel and AMD eventually failed.

I think the issue is two fold. Firstly, people who join mac-forums mostly come to complain. Whenever they face any problem, user generated or otherwise, they tend to ask for help. On the other hand when the system is running smoothly they just don't post about the coolness of Macs(without some exceptions). Therefore you would see the number of complains weighing far more than the positive experience.

Secondly, moving to intel also brought slightly more problems than its predecessor. IBM does far more internal testing before releasing a processor compared to intel. As you probably know, before releasing any new processor it goes through an extensive internal testing phase spanning couple of years. Obviously intel is cutting down on this and as a result they have to come up with various revisions after every release(more frequent than the other manufacturers). Recently intel has released a 38 page document containing errata related to core duo architecture(You can see the summary here). It includes 3 critical errors though the processor is released to the market and used by millions of people. The bottom line is when the manufacturers cut down on testing phase, end users will have to suffer.

It is just my opinion and I am sure you may have counter arguments.

I think it has to do with the opening of Apple's new Shanghai factory, W8. They did it just before the switch. The QC of apple's products from there has been somewhat under par. The old UV Taiwan factory had much better QC than W8. The minis, produced in YM China and W8 have had better QC. However, the Mac Pros produced at all the other factories has been the most reliable.