![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.1){kind=small}
1984
2005
Edit: Sorry about that. I wasn't aware that the same gag had been used for the Bill Gates WWDC appearance, which would put a totally different spin on things. This isn't the end of the world, or a sellout, or a betrayal. I was trying to make an oblique statement about imagery. The Stevenote was a very well-crafted event designed to make us feel safe and assured about the move to Intel. Apple has always been very conscious and deliberate about the way it presents itself, and scenes like that WWDC screen-cap don't happen by accident.
Maybe a little too oblique.
June 7 2005, 05:39:30 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 05:45:42 UTC 6 years ago
In a way, it's very similar to the allusions in the 1984 advert. Propaganda is marketing is showmanship.
June 7 2005, 05:47:28 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 06:08:56 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 06:17:03 UTC 6 years ago
I don't think this is a decision that Apple envied. During his keynote Jobs said that they've had every version of Mac OS X compiled for x86 "just in case". Well, when it's a year past when a 3.0 GHz G5 was promised and when PowerBooks only get minor speed bumps and still run on G4s, something has to give. And this was it.
Apple's not saying that they've always agreed with Intel, they're saying this was the best option laid out before us at this point in time.
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
June 7 2005, 07:17:04 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
June 7 2005, 11:58:34 UTC 6 years ago
It was used with the image of Bill Gates on the same monitor behind Steve Jobs in 1998 when Microsoft gave millions of dollars to 'save' Apple. Fanboys said that Apple was done for -- but you see what's happened since 1998?
June 7 2005, 12:26:38 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 05:45:15 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 05:50:16 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 05:56:44 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 06:14:20 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 06:19:58 UTC 6 years ago
I suspect the Mac games market will go totally insane in the meantime (fat binaries are unlikely to help with something as close to the metal as a game), but I don't play games much anyway.
I was planning to buy a G5 iMac some time soon, and this announcement hasn't changed my mind.
6 years ago
6 years ago
June 7 2005, 06:09:59 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 07:17:46 UTC 6 years ago
Deleted comment
June 7 2005, 06:11:50 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 07:03:55 UTC 6 years ago
I get this statement and can't think of a better way to put it. First we are told we are paying a thousand bucks more for a computer because the G5 is the whizz bang best thing since the thong and J-Lo's ass. Echoing 10 years of propaganda. Now a.k.a 1984 we are told Intel is the best thing out there. But continue to by the G5 and the G4 upgrade PowerBook because they are the best too. He should have dropped in a bit about how Eurasia was our new allie too.
Is Apple officially part of the Bush administration or what now? Double speak at its best.
And now we all have to buy all new softare so it will run best on the new best machine. I don't care what he says. Adobe will stop putting altivec in their programs, no point writing it in. And the code will be compiled to run best on intel not powerpc's.
And what about the muliple core PowerPC's. Seems like this was a done deal before they were a reality.
I see this as Jobs once again pissing on the mac faithful. LEOPARD will be renamed Mac OS X-P.
Think Similar the new slogan.
Wait until we have a virus or 20 and it has to happen.
And wait until longhorn and XP run faster. Now where will the excuse to pay that much more be with Jobs.
Will they fire Jobs yet again?
June 7 2005, 12:13:14 UTC 6 years ago
As unique and different a business as Apple is, when it comes down to it, it is still a business. It needs to be able to adapt and change to continue to meet its customers' needs.
Apple has perceived a problem with continuing to use PPC, and so it's adapting and throwing out that processor architecture. It's as basic as that. It does not mean anything of what you've suggested. Again, I direct you to 1998 when Microsoft gave Apple a pile of 'seed' money. Everybody went agog thinking that Apple had sold out to Microsoft and that Steve Jobs was, as you put it, "pissing on the Mac faithful". But the truth was, that money gave Apple years of breathing room and allowed them to innovate in ways that brought about, oh, the iMac, the iBook, the iPod, OS X, and the growth in market share that has kept Apple alive and thriving.
Also, think back to the days before Steve Jobs came back in 1997, when Apple did make decisions based on little more than tradition. I'll bet frickin' Gil Amelio would have stayed with Motorola's chips, and it would have been a bad decision.
Come on, change is not always a bad thing.
June 7 2005, 16:06:41 UTC 6 years ago
I changed from OS 9 programs to OS X. Just to have things run quickly. Now we will have to change to the pentium machines as all the softare will be optimized for them.
In a nut shell Jobs knows the doey eyed mac freaks (as I once was) will by any spoonful of his hemlock and tell him how wonderful it tastes.
I am not saying I will go to windows. It just isn't a fair choice. And Jobs never said the G5 was stop gap. He clearly stated it was the best. And the future of the macintosh. Well we know he was lying to us. We know he was plotting to go pentium all along.
Apparently the only myth to the megahertz myth was the idea it was a myth itself.
Now that is what I mean't by doublespeak. Is Karl Rove on apples board now?
Hmmmmmm.
Look no wonder develpment of the G5 has slowed. Why would they, knowing the switch to Pentium is coming down the pike? Think about it, how long they have been talking to Pentium. Jobs acts like it is a recent meeting. It was not. At least as long as the G5 has been around. So that is why we have no G5 in the powerbook. It wasn't in IBM's best interest.
June 7 2005, 20:36:01 UTC 6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
6 years ago
June 7 2005, 12:30:08 UTC 6 years ago
Many people don't buy Mac's for the OS, they buy them for the clean interface design and the excellent software - and even with stuff that has Windows-native versions like the Adobe apps, it's still often more productive using them on MacOS X.
To anyone with a brain it was always obvious that the move to G5 was a quick fix to a problem that neither Motorola nor IBM have proven capable of solving - how to ramp PowerPC processor speeds whilst keeping their power consumption at low enough levels to be suitable for small form-factor consumer desktops and the laptop market. The Power5 architecture is fundamentally a hack, a cut down variant of a processor designed for use in Big Iron and not the consumer-centric devices that Apple is currently exploring. Intel hardware can do this, and it does it very well: people spend too much time looking at how Windows performs on this hardware, but if you boot up an old copy of BeOS R5 on any modern Intel system it literally screams along and you start to realise just how much raw power the latest Pentium-M chips are delivering whilst still running far cooler than my Powerbook ever seems to.
The loss of Altivec may seem like a huge blow right now, but it's foolish to second-guess the performance of Intel's processors two years from now and until we know what other components will be going into the design of this new generation of Apple hardware (perhaps a separate Altivec-compatible vector coprocessor?) I think it's best to avoid knee-jerk reactions and give them the benefit of the doubt. After all, Jobs has laid out a very credible roadmap for handling the transition, and the technology appears to be coming together very nicely.
June 7 2005, 14:17:27 UTC 6 years ago
June 7 2005, 19:29:01 UTC 6 years ago
Debian (Sarge) Linux on the same hardware feels considerably more responsive, and aside from a few issues over the relative performance of threading in Linux and Darwin, is probably indicative of how MacOS X would feel on the same hardware. If either Linux or Darwin adopted pervasive multi-threading the way that BeOS does, the performance would be even more spectacular.
And of course with MacOS X running on equivalent x86 hardware there's not going to be much need for anti-virus bloatware to suck all of the processing power >;)
June 7 2005, 07:13:17 UTC 6 years ago