intel macs released

[GS Rider]

So teh apple stores online were shut ddown for a few hours and now back online with the new intel procesor macs...

[NickC]

Just iMacs. They also introduced a 15-inch Intel MacBook Pro (formerly named PowerBook) but those won't ship until February -- although you can order it now.

The rest of their computers remained the same... so far. But this is all that was announced at MacWorld SF today.

[kaitanium]

and they are looking sweet. cnat wait till someone can figure out something to run osX on pcs before they get sued.

[Sageg]

I'm just concerned about how PS will run on the new intels. Adobe will not release a new macintel platform-specific version of PS at this point in time. Rosetta is the translation software that will allow PS to run on the macintels. I'm trying to decide if I can wait long enough to see how the non-Apple/"real world" tests with PS on the macintels.

[blue_max]

I wonder if us mac users will now enjoy viruses like our fellow pc users? Or maybe the OS will shield us. I do hope so.

Graham

[Citizensmith]

I'm just waiting for a 'shareware' version of OS-X for intel to show up on a torrent somewhere. Got an old Dell server sitting there that may be fun to try OS-X out on.

[FlipsidE]

'tis a sad sad day. I seriously wish they could have worked things out with the people who made the PPC chips (I believe IBM). I really am not a fan of Intel at all. It's gonna be a rough year for all new Mac owners...esp since all programs for OSX were optimized for G4 and G5 processors...I bet they are going to run like CRAP on intel processors. Like I said, I give it a year minimum before we see any true advantage of intel based macs versus current PPC based macs.

R.I.P. G4/G5 chips...you shall be missed.

FlipsidE

[Billginthekeys]

i disagree. in fact the new compatability and better parts this change has brought on has convinced me to give up on pc and move to mac at the nearest convienence. hardcore mac fanatics might disagree, but the new comps have fixed everything i dont like about them. yet of course it does stink that everything is right now being optimized for the powerpc chips, and i know two people who just bought powerbooks (sucks for them), but hey, im glad theyre taking the initiative, technology is moving fast, apple is in the market to be on top of it, and theyve always been about making the newest stuff the only stuff that can be usable to the fullest extent, better than windows, which until vista comes out will have gotten little added too it but worthless added security and a more pleasent gui.

[blue_max]

'tis a sad sad day. I seriously wish they could have worked things out with the people who made the PPC chips (I believe IBM). I really am not a fan of Intel at all. It's gonna be a rough year for all new Mac owners...esp since all programs for OSX were optimized for G4 and G5 processors...I bet they are going to run like CRAP on intel processors. Like I said, I give it a year minimum before we see any true advantage of intel based macs versus current PPC based macs.

R.I.P. G4/G5 chips...you shall be missed.

FlipsidE

I feel like I've been had. After years of telling us they are as fast as pc's, they introduce a pc-based one that is twice as fast!

Graham

[PacAce]

OS X is a Unix-based system. That means that it can easily be ported from one platform to another because the kernel does all the software/hardware translation. For the most part, the only thing that really needs to be reworked is the kernel code. The CPU that the machine is running with should have minimal impact on the overall operation of OS X. And, if you noticed, all the hardward peripherals that are used on the Macs are mostly stardard off-the-shelf stuff that are also used in PCs. So, my take on this PowerPC vs Intel CPUs is that it shouldn't make a difference. And that goes for the viruses as well. Just because a machine is running an Intel chip doesn't mean that vurses that attack Windows will also be capable of attacking another OS because it's running on an Intel chip. It's not the chip that makes an OS vulnerable to virus attacks. It's the OS itself that determines that.

And for those people waiting for the day when they can run OS X on their PCs, I'm afraid you may be in for a long wait. Even if OS X is rewritten to run on Intel based Macs, that won't necessarily mean that OS X will run on a PC. The OS X kernel will be written specifically for the Mac hardware and I'm pretty sure that Apple's Intel based Macs are going to be just different enough from the standard PC hardware to make them incompatible. For those of you who still remember when the microcomputers where becoming a household item in the early to mid 80s, the Ataris, Commodore 64s and Apple IIe machines were all based on the Motorala 6205 chip (or some derivitive of it) but none of those OSs were compatible with each other.

But that's not to say that someone can't go and try to write an OS X type clone OS that will run on the PCs. After all, most of OS X is Unix based, just like Linux is. I'm just not sure what the implications are in trying to clone the look-feel of the OS X UI itself since I'm not sure if that's been copyrighted by Apple or not.

Just my 2 cents. :)

[epolevne]

I feel like I've been had. After years of telling us they are as fast as pc's, they introduce a pc-based one that is twice as fast!

Graham

Gotta look at the machines they are replacing with intel procs. Surely nobody is surprised that a single G4 proc (whose architecture is many years old) is slower than dual modern intel proc architecture.

Notice the quad G5 isn't being discontinued yet...those are still pretty damn fast :-)

[CyberDyneSystems]

G5 is a sweet machine.. Still,. they are no Dual Dual Core Opterons.. Shame Apple didn't go with AMD,. if not for the superior architecture,. to at least spite intel! :lol:

[Citizensmith]

G5 is a sweet machine.. Still,. they are no Dual Dual Core Opterons.. Shame Apple didn't go with AMD,. if not for the superior architecture,. to at least spite intel! :lol:

I'm an AMD fan as well, but unfortunately in this case Intel was the only choice. With Macs being the pre-built packages they are the fact that intel can offer complete chipsets puts them ahead of AMD. Of course it is kind of funny that they switched to Intel because of heat/power issues with the PowerPC processors and that is something that AMD actually do even better than Intel.

[lakiluno]

just a note: the developer version of OSX tiger that was released on the dev machines IS hacked for standard PC's, but is kinda hacked together and requires a new 64bit AMD or a P4/celeron (of the new variety)

Leo

[The22oz]

I shall be a mac owner soon ... I will have pictures for you all <333

[Citizensmith]

The big issue with getting OSX to run on a intel/amd machine is the lack of BIOS. It would be easier to get windows to run on one of the new Macs, you are just stuck with Windows VIsta. Only Vista and XP64 can run with no Bios and there are no 64 bit Macs.

[TammieO]

I work for Intel, so please buy machines that are built on the Intel platform. I need bonus money for my next lens. :lol:

[epolevne]

The big issue with getting OSX to run on a intel/amd machine is the lack of BIOS.

Actually the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) that the Intel Macs use is a standard Intel concept that can optionally have a BIOS emulator included. There are several intel mobos that support both EFI (which Mac OS X, XP64, Vista, and Linux could use) and BIOS (which XP32 needs). The EFI implementation that Apple uses does not have the optional BIOS emulation since Mac OS X wouldn't use it anyway.

The real limiter to installing Mac OS X on a non-Apple computer is the lack of a required piece of hardware that identifies the computer as "built by Apple." It won't be long until this software check is cracked and Mac OS X runs on regular PCs with appropriate drivers.

[Bass Ackwards]

Love my AMD, much better than the Intels I have had before. Would love to buy a G4 or G5, but now I am definately gonna wait and see how this whole deal pans out.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Has anyone else seen the TV ad that Apple is running about the intel procs using the Moby song as backgorund music...?

Is it just me ,. or has Apple funded a prime time expensive add where the sound is totally messed up? Sounds like an old tape that got stretched or something.. very odd that no one else seems to notice this rather glaring flaw before it is being run on Prime time on several channels.

And it's not just the music that's "off pace" though that's easier for me to spot as I am familiar with the peice,. but the voice over is distorted too... weird.

[The22oz]

Has anyone else seen the TV ad that Apple is running about the intel procs using the Moby song as backgorund music...?

Is it just me ,. or has Apple funded a prime time expensive add where the sound is totally messed up? Sounds like an old tape that got stretched or something.. very odd that no one else seems to notice this rather glaring flaw before it is being run on Prime time on several channels.

And it's not just the music that's "off pace" though that's easier for me to spot as I am familiar with the peice,. but the voice over is distorted too... weird.

I don't think they would let that slip. People have weird taste and they may like the added effects, no matter how destructive to the actual song.

[swiftybilko]

I shall be a mac owner soon ... I will have pictures for you all <333

I AM a Mac owner I can provide pictures for you. However, the computers are SO nice, I may have to post them in the Glamour forum. :)

I had a demo of Aperture, the Apple Pro RAW application today in the Trafford Centre (Manchester, UK) Apple Store. It is suh-weeeet.

People forget we've been through a transition before - Motorola 68xxx to PPC - this is not a problem.