| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 65200 | 2006-01-10 22:01:00 | The intel macs are here.. | qyiet (6730) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 419873 | 2006-01-10 22:01:00 | Lord knows if they run windows, but I bet they will run linux (if not right now.. in seconds :D ) www.apple.com www.apple.com The most entertaining thing about this devolpment is apples benchmarking, to all those people who insisted that the PPC was twice as fast "I told you so" :D -Qyiet |
qyiet (6730) | ||
| 419874 | 2006-01-10 22:18:00 | Heh, yes, I really hate Apple's marketing Department. | gibler (49) | ||
| 419875 | 2006-01-10 22:30:00 | Just musing, but I wonder why they didn't go for AMD instead of Intel if their processors are as superior as recent posts might suggest, or is that a gaming advantage only? It will be interesting to see and read the outcomes if somebody invests the time to count and evaluate the marketing flip-flops that this change of processor will produce. Cheers Billy 8-{) :D |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 419876 | 2006-01-10 22:38:00 | Just musing, but I wonder why they didn't go for AMD instead of Intel if their processors are as superior as recent posts might suggest, or is that a gaming advantage only?Apple's big problem was that the PPC processor sucked down the juice, making it very difficult to put one into a laptop. While AMD haves a price/performance advantage in desktop processors, intel seems to hold the high ground in mobile processors. Apple really needed to get their laptops up to scratch, and that is what I believe drove them to intel. Now that they are running on x86 there is very little to stop them switching vendors in the future though :D -Qyiet |
qyiet (6730) | ||
| 419877 | 2006-01-10 22:59:00 | Lord knows if they run windows, but I bet they will run linux (if not right now.. in seconds )Macs could always run Linux. ;) Just musing, but I wonder why they didn't go for AMD instead of Intel if their processors are as superior as recent posts might suggest, or is that a gaming advantage only?Viiv is considered to be a major factor behind the switch, that and IBM's inability to stick to their processor roadmap. The most entertaining thing about this devolpment is apples benchmarking, to all those people who insisted that the PPC was twice as fast "I told you so"PPC processors were faster and it will be interesting to see a comparison between the current Dual Core G5 chips in the PowerMacs and the Dual Core Intel chips in the iMacs. You really can't compare the processor in the previous iMac generation if you want to do a PPC vs x86 comparison because it was a single core processor. My Rev. B iMac is starting to look a little slow now and I've only had it for a month :p , not that I see the major benefit of the new iMac being the Intel processor at this stage (because Creative Suite etc and games won't ran natively for a while) but rather the far better graphics card and DVI output. :rolleyes: |
maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 419878 | 2006-01-11 02:29:00 | I think AMD weren't in the running due to them not being willing to spend the required millions on R&D for a low volume item (which is why IBM told em to go away as well). Lets face it, AMD have their own lack of sales to worry about. Plus that Intel's stongpoint is in encoding, an area where Apple would love to claw back some performance. Personally I thing its a step in the right direction, Apple will at the very least be able to once again compare to a PC on performance, bringing a halt to the last 5 years of under-performing machines. Though, We can all still buy quality PC's for less that will spank em.....muhahahahaha. Though I will be pleasently surprised if the new Macs can outperform a PC, Its about time we had a 2 horse race, And perhaps Mac buyers can start getting a product that rewards them for the extra coin they have to lay down. |
Metla (12) | ||
| 419879 | 2006-01-11 05:30:00 | Personally I thing its a step in the right direction, Apple will at the very least be able to once again compare to a PC on performance, bringing a halt to the last 5 years of under-performing machines.Macs have always had good performance, true you may have to pay a little bit more for a machine with similar specs, but to say they aren't comparable to PCs is a load of rubbish. And perhaps Mac buyers can start getting a product that rewards them for the extra coin they have to lay down.Remember that processor performance isn't the only thing people look for. Some people don't care how ugly their computer is, but those that do don't mind paying a bit more for a stylish computer, not to mention another key factor is the fact Macs run Mac OS - personally preference, but I think it is worth paying more for than Windows as do most people who buy Macs. |
maccrazy (6741) | ||
| 419880 | 2006-01-11 05:30:00 | I think AMD weren't in the running due to them not being willing to spend the required millions on R&D for a low volume item (which is why IBM told em to go away as well) . Lets face it, AMD have their own lack of sales to worry about . Plus that Intel's stongpoint is in encoding, an area where Apple would love to claw back some performance . Personally I thing its a step in the right direction, Apple will at the very least be able to once again compare to a PC on performance, bringing a halt to the last 5 years of under-performing machines . Though, We can all still buy quality PC's for less that will spank em . . . . . muhahahahaha . Though I will be pleasently surprised if the new Macs can outperform a PC, Its about time we had a 2 horse race, And perhaps Mac buyers can start getting a product that rewards them for the extra coin they have to lay down . what a nice reply to a mac thread Metla . Did you enjoy your 24 hour holiday? :eek: one thing has disappointed me already on the new laptop and thats the absence of a dual layer burner . how long will it be B4 somebody dual boots windows? and no price drop :annoyed: |
plod (107) | ||
| 419881 | 2006-01-11 05:45:00 | Remember that processor performance isn't the only thing people look for. Some people don't care how ugly their computer is, but those that do don't mind paying a bit more for a stylish computer, This is true. There are those who just rush off to their nearest chain store and then there are those who care what they are getting. This is why I have always specified exactly what components I want in my PC and chosen the case and peripherals with much reading of reviews and comparing of products. I see MAC allows you to choose your keyboard now....How progressive of them. And another comment: www.tgdaily.com |
pctek (84) | ||
| 419882 | 2006-01-11 05:58:00 | Rather amusing: From techdirt.com : "Unless you're the sort of person who immediately recognized why the folks at Google originally sought to raise $2,718,281,828 in its IPO, you might want to just pass over this story. A reporter at News.com noticed an extremely unintentional inside joke with Apple's closing share price today. On the very day the company officially announced its first Intel-based product, Apple's stock price closed at $80.86. If you don't get it, it's time to read up on your computer history. No, there is no way at all that this was intentional. However, that doesn't make it any less amusing." |
ninja (1671) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||