Should Apple dump the G-Series and go with INTEL?

[MattK]

I have been watching apple, to see what they are going to be doing with their procesors. Rumor has it that apple is going to dump Motarolla and go with AMD or Intel.

What do you think,

Is it not a mac without a Motarolla chip

Or is the software what REALLY matters?

[evulish]

The mac isn't a mac without the processor Otherwise it's just a candied-up BSD I doubt Mac will have much of a chance on ix86 machines...except for people who don't like Windows and are scared to use linux. Mac has always just been the 'other' choice...the worst thing about it is that if you DID want to swtich, you would need to buy new (read: expensive) hardware.

Apple should stick to what the know: stay away from x86. The main reason: they don't have a chance in heck for creating a market on ix86. It's dominated by Windows. I am also positive that development for the fruity version of MS Office would stop...since MacOS would be in direct competition with MS. And it wouldn't be smart for Microsoft to create software for a competitor.

It would be kinda nice to see...but it's pretty much unrealistic. It would kinda like be shoving a sprinter in a race with distance runners. The sprinter is good at what he does but doesn't stand a chance against the competition.

[Joe Matt]

I think that if the G5 dosn't come out soon, apple should consider getting rid of Motorola. They have been sitting on their thumbs for too long.

[Kyle Fenton]

Originally posted by MattK
I have been watching apple, to see what they are going to be doing with their processors. Rumor has it that apple is going to dump Motorola and go with AMD or Intel.

What do you think,

Is it not a Mac without a Motorola chip

Or is the software what REALLY matters?

This rumor has been a big one. But I think this is highly doubtful for 2 reasons.

1. Software vendors will have to re-compile their products for an Intel/AMD processor, which right after compiling their Apps for Mac OS X would anger developers even more.

2. Intel is still somewhat a CICS processor, which Motorola has always been a RICS processor. They would have to re-write a lot of drivers, system files, etc. to get right.

This is more of an analyst dream than a actual dream. To the eyes of an analyst an Intel processor is cheaper and more readily available than a Motorola processor. The technical feats would be too much to bear.

Plus

* Even though Motorola processors only go at 1.25 GHz, they can still compete with even the latest 3.0 GHz due to its Velocity Engine.

* The next generation of processors will most likly be a 64 bit IBM Power 4. (Kind of Ironic, but hey) Its a PowerPC compatible processor with a Velocity Engine. Right now it is used in Linux servers.

All things fair I have also heard of a project called Marklar which is just in case the PowerPC fails to deliver it can be ported to X86.

Also Darwin, the core of Mac OS X has been ported to an X86 for some time now.

Don't be fooled with MHz, it is only a partial measurement of speed, there are many other factors that come into play.

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by Kyle Fenton

Don't be fooled with MHz, it is only a partial measurement of speed, there are many other factors that come into play.

We all know that, but look at the fools who still buy the latest and greatest 2.__ ghz machine.

[evulish]

A bigger number must mean better quality!

[Matt Attallah]

Originally posted by evulish
A bigger number must mean better quality!

...In some cases....

[ChrisA]

since motorola is one of the makers of apples processors i say y switch...

anyways if u put an intel chip in there that means u basically have just built a pc so... there ya go

[Jnadke]

"What is Darwin? Darwin is the core of Mac OS X. The Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies and provides protected memory and pre-emptive multitasking. Darwin runs on PowerPC-based Macintosh computers and a version is also available for x86-compatible computers.

Q: What is Darwin, and how does it relate to Mac OS X?

A: Darwin is an open source, UNIX-based operating system built on BSD 4.4 and Mach 3.0 which forms the core of Mac OS X. Darwin is primarily what is called the "core operating system" (i.e, the kernel, drivers, and command-line utilities common to UNIX distributions), but a Darwin release includes several other pieces, including the compiler toolchain, a security framework based on CDSA, and parts of the Mac OS X "Core Foundation" framework. When we say a "Darwin system", we usually mean one built only using Open Source code, though technically every "Mac OS X" system is also a Darwin system, since it is built on top of Darwin"

From the Apple website...

It seems that all they would have to do is create the GUI if they decided to go the route of x86.

[Matt Reiland]

Originally posted by JosephM


We all know that, but look at the fools who still buy the latest and greatest 2.__ ghz machine.

Fools??! Hmmmm

[Trashed20]

the computer can only go as fast as you can click and the programs can do their thing. if ya can't read it off th hd, processing speed means jack.

[David Kelly]

they should dump the whole mac idea

[Joe Matt]

Originally posted by David Kelly
they should dump the whole mac idea

hehe....

[mtaman02]

MAC should go Buh byes. Motorola should just stick to making walkie talkies / cell phones. Sony should just make TV's radios get rid of the PC's they make. All companies should stick to what they know and stop trying to compete with other companies which can make far better products. my .2 cents

[Kyle Fenton]

I don't know why people bash Macs so much. If you really never used the recent Macs (Mac OS X) than you really shouldn't be "dissing it." That goes for any product really.

Anyways I am not going to start that hole Mac Vs. PC thing like they did about a month ago.

General consumers are often fooled that speed is everything. For example, Office works just as fast on a 200Mhz Machine as it does with a 3.0 Ghz machine. That is partly why the computer industry is suffering so much, there really is no reason to upgrade, because all of the applications today still run on machines made 5 years ago. So what, if the newer machines run 2.34 seconds faster than the one you got. It doesn’t matter! What the PC Industry really needs a reason for consumers to upgrade. And I don’t think that is really going to happen until video conferencing comes really good, and consumers replace that with a telephone. And I think Apple is on the right track, with their digital hub strategy, and their iAps. Microsoft has somewhat of a similar plan, but it really isn’t that good.

Speed is really irrelevant unless you’re a pro.

Speed is usually only needed for people who are either rendering animation, compressing video, or graphics.

For games, they always brag about how many hundreds of frames they can produce. So what! You can only see about 60fps to 100fps, because of the refresh rate on most monitors.

Personally I think speed is bloated out of proportion. You have to look at the general picture, and see what best suits your needs.