Apple does WHAT?

To any of you who give a flying apple.

Apple is going to stop using IBM PowerPC chips in their products, well a computer doesn't work without CPU, and Apple is going to be using Inter chips for that purpose.

Few years back, Apple computers were the fastest consumer computers around, but about year or two back that changed and PowerPC based Apple computers are not the speed kings anymore, Intel and AMD have gone way beyond that, but this is only the CPU, Apple G5 is still extremely fast computer thanks to it's solid hardware and OS, could this mean that Macs drop in price? And maybe it is easier for developers to port games from Windows platform to Mac? Maybe Apple can take back that speed king crown.

Well, just like with that Adobe Macromedia thing, we just have to wait, but apple promised that first Intel based Mac will hit stores June 2006.

Yeah well, I don't really think that Applets (Apple fanatics) go nuts over this, but it is actually pretty big thing, IBM PowerPCs were for a long time THE reason, why Apple was the speed king and I believe most of it is loyalty. But IBM has been sleeping with the console makers these days and I think maybe Apple would have liked a piece of that Cell Processor action, who knows.

Macs are quite close to PCs, they are just branded as Macintosh, for a while only thing different has been the processor and the mobo chipset, they use PCI-X and DDR memory, SATA HDDs many technologies used by PC manufacturers, but in the end they are computers, just like DELL or HP, they just made it sure that every piece of hardware works optimal with their OS.

But I think Macs continue to be a special breed of workstations because they are build as ones, just like consoles are good for gaming beucase they are build for it (except the space dildo PS3 ).

Quote from GrayFox

Wha?

Are you pondering the typo? Which ment to be 'because' or the PS3 comment?

PS3 was never designed to be a gaming console, and Sony officials say that "we never called PS3 a gaming console" they say it's a living room entertainment center aka. computer which makes it the worst piece of hardware to play games on, it's not a computer nor actually a console, it's a George Foreman grill with wireless controllers.

But let's not turn this thread in to a PS3 thread.

Quote from KungFuSquirrel

And anyone working on a Xenon* title. Dev kits are G5s.

*I still refuse to refer to it as the xbox 360. Boo marketing focus group!

That is awesome info KFS, and Xenon does sound way cooler than xBOB 360

Quote from GrayFox

That's just marketing shit. I mean, you can play games and watch DVDs with it. That's pretty much it (unless there is some special feature that they haven't announced yet). It's mainly a gaming console, period.

Yeah well Surfing in on the internet and ripping tv-programs and dvds (maybe editing them too since they say PS3 can encode video and audio) does not sound like a game console to me.

Just a few key quotes from Ken Kutaragi

"Users will be able to store their content in an online storage server called the 'Cell Storage.' And the Cell processor, when it's not being used, can refine the content's quality. We call it the 'aging' process. For example, users can 'age' their Standard Definition (SD) video and up-convert it to High Definition (HD) video. We have many plans [for the PS3], but this 'Cell Storage' service is something that we definitely intend to launch. By using the Cell's security feature, users will be able to rip DVDs that include copyright protection and lay it in the storage area to refine its video quality."

"PCs that are currently available have been created as work tools. They've begun selling computers with media playback capabilities, such as the Media Center PC, but those just imitate the functions of home electronics. It's not like those machines have been created solely for entertainment. On the other hand, the PS3 has been created [specifically] as a computer for entertainment. Entertainment refers to a lot of things, and not just to games. The PS3 will be able to provide powerful functions for all of the [imaginable] forms of entertainment,"

Qutes from Gamespot article Kutaragi: PlayStation 3 "is not a game machine"

Quote from FrieChamp

Yea, now that all the next-gen consoles will use PowerPCs, Apple goes for Intel. Weeeird.

You over simplified the matter big time, not one of the consoles use the PPC chip, and besides IBM can sell the chips to who ever they want to without Apple caring, it's more about the fact that IBM has put more resources on developing the console chips than it uses to develop the PPC line and the fact that they agreed with Sony to cut everyone else out of the Cell processor game other that toshiba ofcourse must have added the fair share of "distrust" against the big blue.

Hell if I was on a multi billion dollar computer business and my partners were not 100% in the game, I would kick them out the door so fast they'd leave a shit streak. IBM is way too confident that they make more money on console business than in the workstation business with Apple and it shows.

Some Macmagazine editor here in Finland made a fool out of himself by saying that the new Xbox 360 uses the G5 processor, and the two processors, PowerPC 970 (G5) and PowerPC 603e (Xbox 360 processor) are two completely different chips, IBM has just a habit of naming their processors PowerPC.

It still is quite interesting to see how loyality is unknown concept in the console market, like MS jumped from Intel and nVidia to IBM and ATI, Nintendo still uses IBM and ATI (and I half expected Revolution to be powered by happiness and warm feelings), Sony had Toshiba help to design the chip but how much they did is not actually known.

IBM is on the money right now, and I don't see that ATI being unappy right about now. So I don't blame Apple for leaving IBM to play with his new friends. And yet again I think, with IBM having so much versatility against what the hell Intel actually has, as when talking about PC workstations I would go with AMD right now. How can Intel do better than IBM?