Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Apple, what have you done?

Dec 23, 2007 2:14AM PST

IBM is going to pave the way, and you went and screwed up your chances of Mac superiority.

http://www-03.ibm.com/press/us/en/pressrelease/21580.wss

Just think... POWER processors are derived from and related to the PowerPC architecture... and with these newer IBM CPUs that have recently come out, any Macs that would have had them inside would be incredible. Sadly, Apple would not wait for the mobile G5 chips, and now we're stuck with good old Intel chips. And only to run Windows on our new PCs, oh wait, Macs. Wink I wouldn't mind 4.7Ghz in a Mac Pro with 32GB of RAM. Sigh... I'll still use Macs until Apple makes a deal with AMD, though that may never happen. It's going to be Intel+Apple for awhile.

I always wanted a PowerBook G5... Grin
-BMF

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Dejunk.
Dec 23, 2007 5:32AM PST

There are a few that wish they had never switched. But look at the speed boosts from switching. The PPC arch was ok but without the billions of bucks to move it forward and lower it's power consumption it was doomed.

Bob

- Collapse -
Don't hold your breath
Dec 23, 2007 7:01AM PST

waiting for an AMD deal, at least for a while.

AMD are not doing too well in the processor race and while they were up there, ahead of Intel, they seem to be lagging behind now.

P

- Collapse -
I know, just metioning it.
Dec 23, 2007 8:55AM PST

Considering the fact that they still offer ATI cards for the Pro and iMacs, I still see it as a possibility. Though they did start using Intel accelerators in the low end Macs (MacBooks and Minis) after the Intel transition and ATI cards were replaced with Nvidia cards in the MBPs earlier this year. If ATI products aren't completed removed from Apple's products and AMD does do well this coming year like they have promised, who knows? Like I said before, it's Apple and Intel for now and may stay that way for awhile. I think Apple has expressed interest in a new upcoming line of Intel products for 2009. AMD will go out of business by then Wink. Or Intel will buy them out and reign supreme as always.

-BMF

- Collapse -
Hind sight is always right
Jan 4, 2008 9:26AM PST

Honestly, when Apple came up with the Intel merger, I was looking at the specs for the Playstation 3 and thinking what are they doing. The Cell processor had allot of potential as a PC, and I was thinking about how dual cell processors would have had some definite benefit for the Apple PowerPC line. I'm rather happy though that they went with the Intel chipset. Natively running either OS is a great benefit to me and many other people in the IT industry, and the added benefit of virtualization speeds up things as well. As far as AMD processors, just look at the news of the hacker sites about OSX x86. It's not impossible. I would say it's just a matter of time before Apple has to give in and produce just an OS that isn't tied down to a hardware platform. I've already read that they are talking about opening up a true SDK for the iPhone and iPod touch for 3rd party applications that natively run, so maybe we are getting there sooner then you think.

- Collapse -
Actually they have promised the SDK already
Jan 4, 2008 9:54AM PST

but the point of my post was IBM has gone and made some processors that would make Macs extremely powerful, better than the current models.

But if Apple hadn't switched, there would not be anything like Boot Camp (yet) nor would we hear of Macs. Most people know who and what Intel is since they are the dominant chip maker in the industry and provide chips for many computers. This switch opened up the Mac to more people since the Intel brand was familiar. Plus, running Windows and OS X in one machine would be helpful. Now Apple has the money and the power to have gone with PowerPC, but like Bob said, there wasn't any of that to back PowerPC up. Still, I thought it was an interesting subject to bring up. I wonder how powerful a Mac Pro could be with those POWER chips inside. Better get a generator to power it, LOL.

-BMF

- Collapse -
Apple What Have You Done?
Jan 5, 2008 12:16PM PST

I had misgivings about the switch to Intel and have been using a PowerBook G4 12" ever since my G4 iMac 20" died after one year on its second motherboard. Furthermore, I watched Microsoft switch from Intel in the XBOX to a tri-core PowerPC chip running at 3.2Ghz. It seemed as if the world had turned upside down.
However, I now have a new 20" Aluminum/Glass iMac running at 2.4Ghz and I'm amazed at how fast it is compared to either of my G4 "Super Computers". Not that my PowerBook is slow at 1.5Ghz, but compared to my iMac, it is. I have not yet purchased the over priced Windows OS (no matter WHAT flavor) but like the idea of being able to run more than one OS on my Mac. My 360 is just plain awesome, so much so that if Microsoft had ever put out a browser for it I may never have purchased my iMac. So, in the end I find I like all three of my machines. One for gaming (2nd to none), one for productivity and one for portability (my 12" G4 is still a great machine). I recently added Apple's new wireless keyboard and mouse both of which work great and look beautiful like you always knew they should.
In the end, both Apple and Microsoft have made good decisions.

- Collapse -
When you look at it that way
Jan 5, 2008 1:12PM PST

you're right. I just can't wait for the day where one buys out the other, preferably Apple buys MS, but that seems near impossible. But Apple did wind up becoming a very successful company after Steve's return and to Dell's dismay, so anything can happen LOL.

Funny how MS uses the very same type of chip in their 360s that Apple once used in Macs. See gamers? Macs are for gaming! Graphics on Intel Macs are impressive...
-BMF