Have an account? Log in to leave your comments!
journal: mac
An Interesting Perspective on the Intel Switch
By ditching the Mac hardware altogether, Apple frees itself up to aggressively attack Microsoft with software.
Also read Arden’s response to this story. --ed
---------------
Intel Macs only one-fourth, not four times faster
Macworld has gotten hold of the x86 iMacs and run some benchmarks. There’s lots of good news for speed-starved Mac users. The iMac boots in 25 seconds, and shaves the time taken to perform some mathematically-intensive tasks by a third.
But on the whole, the results show a speed bump of only a measly quarter over today’s overclocked G4 and new G5 processors.
“Unfortunately, our tests suggest that the remarkable results of Apple’s published tests aren’t reflected in most of the real-world applications we tested. Based on our initial tests, the new Core-Duo-based iMac seems to be 10-20 per cent percent faster than its predecessor when it comes to native applications, with some select tasks showing improvement above and beyond that,” writes Macworld’s Jason Snell.
Ouch! That’s gotta hurt!
Why did Apple move to Intel, then, really?
Intel justifiably remains one of the most lauded companies on the planet not for the quality of its chips, but for its consistent innovation in production. It’s a manufacturing company first and foremost, and its R&D is geared towards keeping its facilities full.
What falls off the end of the Intel production doesn’t really matter.
This hardly helps you, dear reader, as you’re waiting for a window to refresh, or a QuickTime export to finish, but it’s the reason for Intel’s importance in the global economy, when superior products from Texas Instruments, IBM and AMD are available. The markets demand consistency, and only Intel can satisfy the need for consistent production levels without some disruption.
So where does this fit in to Apple’s future plans? With iPod revenues now matching computer revenues, the computer business is now far less important to Apple than it was. And more importantly, consumer music devices is where all the growth is.
Putting Intel Inside was never the smartest technical decision. But it makes it easier for Apple to move to a software licensing business for Mac OS X, or sell the computer business completely.
Given Apple’s ambivalence towards people running Windows on its new macs, this scenario seems more likely than ever. It’s also clear that, halo effect notwithstanding, the Mac’s miniscule market-share continues to be a significant hindrance for Apple’s computer business. By ditching the Mac hardware altogether, Apple frees itself up to aggressively attack Microsoft with software.
Apple has shown a remarkable strength in software as of late, releasing high-quality applications at a rapid clip; iLife gets annual updates, iWork is the number-two-selling office suite (despite comprising only two applications) and Apple’s pro applications are pushing players like Adobe off the Mac platform.
Intriguingly, from the other direction, PC hardware manufacturers are set to begin making PCs which are more stylish and less like the beige or black towers of yore. small-form-factor cases, media center cases designed to blend with your entertainment center and convertible tablet PCs are all gaining significant traction.
It’s not hard to imagine Apple wanting to target these devices, letting other companies do the heavy lifting of actually making the PC.
And before you discount it as ‘impossible’, let me remind you that two years ago we also thought Apple would never switch to Intel.
More Info
Intel Macs only one-fourth, not four times faster [reghardware.co.uk]
 |
8 | 2199 |
| UnnDunn | comments | views |
thinkback
I am actually really impressed the new machines are faster AT ALL than the RISC machines. This bodes well; remember: all optimixations have probably not been done. Also, Windows on these machines will REALLy display its genral pokiness, because you will be able to compare on teh same box.
Why can’t anyone just accept the reason Apple gave?
Look, if Apple did not switch, we’d be looking at a 1.7-1.8GHz G4 Powerbook release, with no hope of ever getting to a G5, because IBM doesn’t find it advantageous to make it happen. Maybe the dual-core G4s are usable but Motorola has little interest in pursuing this further.
Instead, with the switch, we have MacBook Pro laptop that at 1.83GHz is faster than all G4s and almost all (excepting maybe a 2.7GHz) single-core G5s (which, to repeat once again, can’t reasonably be put in a laptop). And the 2.16GHz Core Duo chips are coming soon.
That’s a huge difference, both today and for the near-term and long-term future.
Everybody seems to be ignoring the obvious: Windows will run on Apple computers when Microsoft produces a version of Windows for Apple computers.
Dell doesn’t port Linux to Dell computers; Linux ports Linux to Dell computers.
I’m not turning blue, so I must not be holding my breath.
You guys thinking that Apple is going to ditch the computer and use the GUI to run on generic boxes and attack MSFT keep ignoring the words of the one person who knows what is going to happen—Steve Jobs.
On several occasions this past year alone, he has gone on record as saying in the Consumer Electronic space and in todays fast paced technology world, separate companies making just parts of the widget can’t innovate fast enough, can’t work seamlessly together, can’t the the perfect integration of hardware and software and design right.
He has pointed to the Pod specifically, saying that the plays for sure guys they are going to beat the iPod MSFT will have to get in the hardware game.
He/AAPL are advocates of the seamless experience, it is central to the success of Apple. Hardware is a hugh profit center. Do yo think the Mac UI experience would be great on a Dull Celeron with integrated graphics? Does that sound like anything Steve would subject his crown jewel of an UI to? It doesn’t to me.
What is more likely is that AAPL will allow Windows to run unsupported on the the Mac hardware to entice buyers to buy Mac Hardware. Thus attacking DELL Remember the bulls eye? We’re coming after you. You’re in our sights.
His target right now is Dell and HP and Gateway. remember SJ was the original computer geek. I don’t think he’s done with it. I believe he still has unfinished business with the whole computer tech industry.
So you buy a Mac you get Mac OS iLife, iWork no viruses span, spyware etc., and you get to run that one stupid legacy App from work that your IT department won’t jettison to protect their jobs or… you buy a Dull and you get that one legacy app and spyware and viruses etc. and windows crap and no Mac.
What are you going to buy?
While SJ and AAPL are whittley away at the hardware competition, lots of folks are getting real comfortable and familiar with the great Mac user experience, using windows less and less.
How does apple lose in this scenario?
Apple will concentrate on the media/tv box market (made out of the mac mini). This is probably their next big annoucement and why the mini was not given an intel update as expected. This has already started with the tv shows sold through iTunes but will greatly expand with Pixar/Disney in HD format along with other content.
Intel has copyright protection technlogy that is appealing to content creators involved in an iTunes for television/movies sort of thing.
When the media/tv thing is on solid ground Apple can have two major revenue streams selling content and can consider selling off or cloning the hardware (including iPods, and Macs).
I’m guessing but it seems pretty clear.
Windows on these machines will REALLy display its genral pokiness
You mean little to none?
| Jan. 24, 2006 | |
| Liam | 8:19 pm |
Actually, it’ll settle once and for all any arguments about speed both OS’s will have. Pokiness is of course relative, but in my experience, Windows’s UI is “quick and dirty” while OS X’s is more “pokey and clean.” In other words, windows scroll and resize faster in XP than X, but I’ve never made GUI art with OS X.
But in any case, for the first time ever (okay, the 2nd, counting the DTK’s), we’ll be able to compare OS X to Windows with the exact same hardware. Provided someone gets it working, of course.
| Jan. 25, 2006 | |
| Arden | 12:29 am |
1.
For my counter-argument, see Counterspective: Apple is a hardware company. As mentioned, it started as a comment in this very comment box.