Aptel, errr, Inple
Another big announcement recently in the IT world: Apple will stop producing PowerPC -based systems and will begin using Intel chips.
I will dispense my wisdom.... now.
There are so many things wrong with this that it makes my kidneys hurt. I'm by no means a Mac bigot, and I don't even really mind running OSX on Intel chips, but I do have a problem with how this is all being done.
First of all, why Intel chips? Why not AMD? Intel is so in bed with HP, Dell, and Microsoft, that Apple isn't going to have a chance getting anything out of them. Just think what's going to happen if/when OSX on Intel starts to take off. Well, first thing is that "dancing" Steve Ballmer from MSFT is going to send off a "We need to talk" email to his butt-buddies at Intel. Let's face it, it's not about the hardware any more, and it hasn't been for a long time. It's about the software. Even if you have quantum-computing speeds in your processors, if you don't run Windows, Linux, or OSX, you've got nothing, end of story. Point being, anyone who thinks MSFT's ties to Intel aren't going to affect the bottom-line of Apple's hardware are smoking the wacky-tobacky. AMD would have been such a better choice. They could have had a good 64-bit hardware implementation, a great inter-CPU bus system, and a supplier who is willing to work with you, rather than against you. Above all, there would have once again been some competition in the CPU market. This move isn't going to help AMD all.
Secondly, what in the hell is Apple thinking telling the public that they're completely switching architectures. "Oh, don't worry, keep buying Macs. The minor CPU changes won't affect anything." WTF!? I don't know about you, but as for myself (someone who was just about to buy a new Mac, and also works at a photo company), there's no way I'm buying anything new until the x86 stuff is out and tested. What a load of yak dung. This is why hardware companies don't release anything about new products until they're actually selling/shipping. I don't anticipate Apple hardware sales doing much of anything but plummeting into a deep dark pit (say hello to Sun while you're there) until the x86 boxes start to ship, and even then, I'll be waiting until things stabilize. In the mean-time, I'll be working on my OSX alternatives. Timing is everything when it comes to operating systems. Release quickly, release often, release features. Screwing with this is suicide.
Thirdly, what's the incentive of buying Apple hardware any more? Why not a Dell box running OSX? Are they going to cripple the OS so that it can't run on anything but Apple x86 boxes? Are they ready to support the vastness that is the "PC hardware" world? Good frickin' luck! I like Apple hardware as much as the next guy, but I would only ever consider buying a Mac because of its cool looks and OSX, and there are limits to each of those considerations. Cool looks are worth, at most, a few hundred bucks to me, and probably a lot less as other vendors are now trying to sell boxes that look "cooler." So really, what does Apple have left? OSX? Sure. How much is it worth? No idea. To me, not a whole heck of a lot. It's BSD with a nice GUI.
I don't know. There's a lot about this that seems wrong to me. It makes me wonder if there isn't something else going on. I'm not the first person to speculate, but maybe this is just a precursor for Intel's buyout of Apple. Even Intel isn't stupid enough to think that hardware can drive the computing market. If they did think that, I'm sure the Itanic pooch-screw has ridden them of the idea. If Intel owns Apple, they can ship "cheap" hardware that's running underneath a finely tuned OS. They can implement the latest-and-greatest architectural "standards" easily and quickly. It's very similar to the old-skool UNIX implementations (Sparc/Solaris, PA-RISC/HP-UX, Alpha/Tru64, etc.) where the hardware vendor was the software vendor, except this time they're doing it in the user-space market with "standard" hardware and an "open" operating system (quoted words being used very liberally.) For Intel and Apple, this is a good thing. For everyone else, a very bad thing. Why this will never happen (smoothly, if at all)? I'm sure Dell, HP, and Microsoft might have a little something to say to Intel if/when they buy Apple, and it's not going to be very cheery.
Ah, what a twisted web we weave.
I will dispense my wisdom.... now.
There are so many things wrong with this that it makes my kidneys hurt. I'm by no means a Mac bigot, and I don't even really mind running OSX on Intel chips, but I do have a problem with how this is all being done.
First of all, why Intel chips? Why not AMD? Intel is so in bed with HP, Dell, and Microsoft, that Apple isn't going to have a chance getting anything out of them. Just think what's going to happen if/when OSX on Intel starts to take off. Well, first thing is that "dancing" Steve Ballmer from MSFT is going to send off a "We need to talk" email to his butt-buddies at Intel. Let's face it, it's not about the hardware any more, and it hasn't been for a long time. It's about the software. Even if you have quantum-computing speeds in your processors, if you don't run Windows, Linux, or OSX, you've got nothing, end of story. Point being, anyone who thinks MSFT's ties to Intel aren't going to affect the bottom-line of Apple's hardware are smoking the wacky-tobacky. AMD would have been such a better choice. They could have had a good 64-bit hardware implementation, a great inter-CPU bus system, and a supplier who is willing to work with you, rather than against you. Above all, there would have once again been some competition in the CPU market. This move isn't going to help AMD all.
Secondly, what in the hell is Apple thinking telling the public that they're completely switching architectures. "Oh, don't worry, keep buying Macs. The minor CPU changes won't affect anything." WTF!? I don't know about you, but as for myself (someone who was just about to buy a new Mac, and also works at a photo company), there's no way I'm buying anything new until the x86 stuff is out and tested. What a load of yak dung. This is why hardware companies don't release anything about new products until they're actually selling/shipping. I don't anticipate Apple hardware sales doing much of anything but plummeting into a deep dark pit (say hello to Sun while you're there) until the x86 boxes start to ship, and even then, I'll be waiting until things stabilize. In the mean-time, I'll be working on my OSX alternatives. Timing is everything when it comes to operating systems. Release quickly, release often, release features. Screwing with this is suicide.
Thirdly, what's the incentive of buying Apple hardware any more? Why not a Dell box running OSX? Are they going to cripple the OS so that it can't run on anything but Apple x86 boxes? Are they ready to support the vastness that is the "PC hardware" world? Good frickin' luck! I like Apple hardware as much as the next guy, but I would only ever consider buying a Mac because of its cool looks and OSX, and there are limits to each of those considerations. Cool looks are worth, at most, a few hundred bucks to me, and probably a lot less as other vendors are now trying to sell boxes that look "cooler." So really, what does Apple have left? OSX? Sure. How much is it worth? No idea. To me, not a whole heck of a lot. It's BSD with a nice GUI.
I don't know. There's a lot about this that seems wrong to me. It makes me wonder if there isn't something else going on. I'm not the first person to speculate, but maybe this is just a precursor for Intel's buyout of Apple. Even Intel isn't stupid enough to think that hardware can drive the computing market. If they did think that, I'm sure the Itanic pooch-screw has ridden them of the idea. If Intel owns Apple, they can ship "cheap" hardware that's running underneath a finely tuned OS. They can implement the latest-and-greatest architectural "standards" easily and quickly. It's very similar to the old-skool UNIX implementations (Sparc/Solaris, PA-RISC/HP-UX, Alpha/Tru64, etc.) where the hardware vendor was the software vendor, except this time they're doing it in the user-space market with "standard" hardware and an "open" operating system (quoted words being used very liberally.) For Intel and Apple, this is a good thing. For everyone else, a very bad thing. Why this will never happen (smoothly, if at all)? I'm sure Dell, HP, and Microsoft might have a little something to say to Intel if/when they buy Apple, and it's not going to be very cheery.
Ah, what a twisted web we weave.
posted by Christopher C. Weis at
3:56 PM
1 Comments:
For apple to use Intel doesn't really make sense to me either. I would think they would possibly switch to AMD with their 64 bit chips or their dual core baby's. Intel doesn't have a solid base on either. As you mentioned, AMD isn't in bed with anyone else except the high end PC makers (alienware to name one). *shrug* only time will tell.
By
Wedge, at 2:40 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home