Ch-ch-ch-changes

[eggwards]

Now that Apple wants to move to Intel for its processors I may hold off on securing a new laptop later this year as I was thinking. I'm not totally convinced that this move is the best thing for Apple, not a bad thing, but I'm not convinced that they couldn't do better. Why not AMD who has a better 64-bit chip?

I understand the whole idea of availability, and being able to compete toe-to-toe with other manufactures on the chip speed factor. That's been a long running marketing problem that they thought was being fixed with the introduction of the G5 chip, but the speed of that chip didn't move as fast as they had hoped. IBM hasn't shown much enthusiasm for development for the chip, despite the specialty Power PC chips that will be made for the new Xbox and PS3.

Of course Apple will suffer for the next year as people like me fail to upgrade, waiting for the latest thing.

Steve Jobs showed developers that the software comparability problems Apple suffered with the moves to the Power PC chip several years ago, and again with the move to OSX will be minimized, but still the move to Intel will change several processes that will take a recompiling of programs and some emulation. Can Apple survive yet another port?

So was the move to Power PC ultimately a mistake or a good thing at the time? Will the need for better chip availability ultimately hurt the company's small userbase when they really need more switchers? It seems a tough time for Apple to do this. Certainly only Apple's strong look and feel and design quotient can save them on this one, but will it be enough, or will they become the iPod company.

My 2001 laptop's getting a little old.

Comments

[chrisglass.livejournal.com]

I face the same dilemma. My laptop is long in the tooth, but I was quite hoping for something to woo me away from it this keynote.

I've faith that Apple has put a fair bit of time into making the decision to go with Intel... Hopefully performance gains are imminent (well, mid 2006 at least)

I'm sure they can weather the drought that will likely emerge from the announcement. Thing is, can I?

Well

[arkanjil.livejournal.com]

it's not just about using a different chip, but about where the chip is going. Both IBM and AMD have (or have commited) relatively limited resources into extending the range of options available in their chips (where's your G5 powerbook, je?). Low power Centrinos dominate the laptop market (which is where the money is in PCs, these days), and there simply is no equivelent option from either IBM or AMD.

On the other hand you may not gain all that much from waiting, either. Whether it's IBM, Intel, AMD, or really smart hamsters inside, the base conceit is that newer computers will always be better- what's inside is irrelevent, so long as it runs the same software as best as it can...

[cubziz.livejournal.com]

Personally, I'm thinking Apple is doing this for two reasons.

1) Kick IBM into actually shipping a product ontime (or else they'll completely lose the income).

2) Explore the reaction from users.

Frankly. The only real reason they would need the Pentium M is to get a "cooler" chip into laptops and "mini" machines.

And frankly, in my opinion, that is not enough to require EVERYTHING rebuilt.

Apple is known for being the company for making the BEST of its hardware, regardless of how "slow" it may appear to be on the box.

This one decision will actually KEEP me from buying another Mac. If I wanted Intel, I'd buy intel. I don't like Intel, so I'm sticking with AMD.

Re: Well

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

I definitely agree that the future is brighter with the Intel set, since IBM seems only interested in doing specialty chips now, not making gains in the Power PC architecture. Certainly the disappointment in the laptop speed was one of the biggest reasons for the change.

Yeah, as long as they don't make me have to by everything all over again, like they've done twice before-grrr. I guess I'll be alright.

Mind if I butt in?

[night-elf.livejournal.com]

Sorry. Just a random searcher and came across your book. Interesting to say the least considering I've been a Mac baby since my father bought a Mac IIci back in the olden golden days. But, believe it or not, after so many odd years of putting up with Apple and their upgrades and needing to periodically rebuy all my software (as a graphic designer, that's not a cheap proposition!!!), late last year I was forced by my company to make the switch to a PC. I could kick myself for not doing it sooner. I always told myself that Apple's lack of susceptability to viruses, etc was a huge plus but that is countered by the PCs much more cost effective price, higher compatibility with everything out there, and faster processing speed.

If I, the die hard Mac Baby of over 20 years, makes the switch and is willing to stay on the Dark Side of PC-om, you can bet that a move like the one Apple is making will turn them into the iPod company they are so quickly on the way to becoming.

Thanks for listening to my rant. I was a pleasure stumbling across your journal! :)

Re: Mind if I butt in?

[eggwards.livejournal.com]

Not a problem. I've had Macs since my LCII, and that was after the Atari's had given up the ghost. I've done through the Power PC shift and the OSX shift, too.

I have to go to work and use a PC, and I really don't want to come home to one, so I'd much rather stay with my Mac at home. I'm hoping that OSX can still keep Apple vibrant on Intel chips, and Unix keep them away from most viruses, but we'll just have to see. It's still a year away, and possibly expensive, again.

Thanks for dropping in!