What will MAC users do now?
 

Since Apple is going way of the Intel chip soon, what will all of you MAC people do for upgrades? Go full blown PC or use MAC OSX on the MAC/PC models?

You won't have any options. Apple has clearly stated they will take steps to insure that OSX only runs on Apple hardware. Want a Mac? Buy a Mac.

So a better question will be, "what will PC users do now?" Apple has also said they won't support MS Windows on the Mac, but they will not do anything to the hardware to prevent it from running.

Now there are some analysts who are speculating that this might mark the beginning of a move by Apple to get out of the hardware business completely. But that clearly isn't happening yet, and would probably be a long way down the road IMO...

I guess I just don't understand what the big deal is all about. I've been using Macs exclusively since 1989 (my first Mac was a IIcx) and I've already gone through several of these "transitions"....System 6 -to- System 7....68K -to- PPC....Classic Mac OS -to- OS X....and as an end user, all of the various transitions were pretty much transparent. This most recent trasition, switching from PPC to X86, doesn't seem any worse or any different than the switch from 68K to PPC.

So I'll do what I've always done: use my Mac as a creative tool. And when I need to buy a new computer I'll be another Mac, regardless of what processor is burried deep inside of it.

I agree, there isn't such a "big deal," although this is a pretty major transition. And (this will really date me ;-) I go back a lot farther than you! Got my Apple ][ in 1978, then a Mac 512k (aka "fat Mac") in 1985 which was still on system 3.x. Next stop was a IIcx like yours, then a Quadra 630, Duo 230, PowerMac 8100 (first generation PPC... not one of their better models). Then PowerMac 7300 (last model before the G3), BW G3/400, G4/750, G3 "Pismo" powerbook, Titanium G4/667 Powerbook, G4/1.25 PowerMac, Aluminum 1ghz 15" Powerbook and now a dual 2.5 G5! And those are just my own personal machines, not including the iMacs and iBooks bought for family, or dozens of Macs at work.

I'm sure Apple has thought this through pretty well and will ease the transition as much as possible. Even so, I wouldn't want to buy the first generation based on previous experience (like that PowerMac 8100). Or remember all the problems with OS X 10.1?

But it's only natural that people will want to discuss this topic since it's a big news story.

Wow...you do go back further! LOL! I started with the IIcx running 6.0.8 (at home with my parents), but the first Mac I bought "on-my-own" was a IIsi a couple years later in college. I quickly traded it for a IIci, then moved on to a Quadra 700, than Quadra 650, PM7100/80 (another first-gen PPC, like your 8100), PM7500/100, Beige G3/333 (that was a BEAST!), B&W G3/300 (a step down, but prettier!), G4/450, G4/450DP (my "powerhouse" forever!), and now I just bought a new 20" iMac two weeks ago.

Laptop-wise, I've had a PowerBook Duo 250, a PowerBook 540c (what an awesome Mac that was), a PowerBook 5300 (the infamous "FireBook"), an original blue clamshell iBook/300, and my current carry-round Mac, an iBook G3/700 (Dual USB).

I too have used them at work forever (and didn't count those Macs), and of course there's all the other Macs I've just picked up over the years after they outlived their usefulness to someone else. At the moment, I've got over 20 Macs in my home--most are in the attic in storage. And when I bought this house, my wife made me throw out over a dozen old Classics that I'd rescued from a school once. LOL!

BTW, I still have my old PB 5300. I know that someday it will be the death of me; I'll plug that sorry S.O.B. in just for old times sake, and it'll burn everything down, including me, my house, and my new Intel-based Mac.

;-)

Hah, those machines were real dogs, huh? ;-) We bought several of them at work because they were very cheap on the used market. They had lots of problems and never performed as well as I expected based on the specs.We didn't keep them for long either, upgraded to the first generation of G3 iMacs...

A good friend had a 5300 "Hindenbook" also. After sending it in countless times, he cut a deal with Apple. They gave him a brand new laptop (the current model, not a 5300), but in exchange he had to sign a long legal document releasing them of all liability, and promising not to publicly discuss the replacement.

I'm pretty sure, knowing a few *fools*, that OSX will most likely be running on regular PCs at some point. Prevention measures are bypassed, cracks are created, etc etc. Being FreeBSD based, there is a lot of buzz already concerning OSX.x's future on PC. I bring all this up mainly out of curiosity. Very interesting move by Apple.

Yes, my IIsi wasn't the best machine in the world, but it was the right price for a poor college student. Thankfully, I got rid of it relatively quickly. :-) The 5300 however still waits in my closet, waiting....patiently waiting....knowing one day that it will break free from it's crack plastic shell, fulfill it's destiny, and KILL ME. :-P

As for someone cracking OS X to run on a generic PC...so what? I wouldn't want to deal with the kind instability an problems inherient in running it on a standard PC box...and certainly not in a "Pro" environment where my work and my liveleyhood depend on it! Heck, one of the best things about Macs is that it's a closed system; makes it that much more likely that everything will work the way it's supposed to.

Isn't a Mac going to be pretty much a PC aside from the OS? If so, then you won't escape instability. Just a thought. PCs do run very reliable on FreeBSD.

No, it will still be a Mac but it will have a different brand CPU chip...

guys, GUYS, where is the editor in all of you?

can you imagine Final Cut Pro (HD no less) on your intel machine? how about triple booting OSX, *nix, Windows?

I doubt it. Apple get's a lot of cred due to it's out of box experience. You get a set hardware spec that works and don't have to muck around with lots of various drivers and hardware implementations etc etc. So I assume they'll do the same with this. I would really doubt they'd just offer an OS in a box and then you buy your own PC. That would be suicide. They may end up making their own motherboards and subsystems, built to their own spec (Although maybe unlikely) and don't expect a standard PC Award BIOS or anything stupid like that - that would be custom too. PC hardware and Windows systems is full of crappy latency issues and subsystem problems galore so I'd think Steve would want to stick away from that and keep a smooth, responsive system. They have an advantage too - they got rid of the floppy drives which were so damned instrumental in screwing Wintel multitasking it wasn't funny.

I think this is a great move for Apple - and I'm a PC guy!

Aaron

Apple has made it clear that OS X will only run on their own hardware. They are leaving the door open to run other operating systems on their machines however. But if you want a Mac, you're still going to have to buy a Mac.

No.

The instability I spoke of isn't due to PC-style hardware, per-say. There's nothing wrong with PC-style hardware. Heck, look inside any Mac made in the last decade; they're full off PC parts: PCI slots, AGP video, DDR SDRAM, IDE/SATA drives, PC Card Slots, USB ports, and nearly everything else is already PC-style hardware. Mac users have been able to go to any random computer store and buy many off-the-shelf PC products (hard drives, optical drives, mice, keyboards, RAM, etc) for years.

The instability I spoke of comes not from the design specifications of PC-style hardware, but rather from the myraid of manufacturers pumping out ultra low-end, bottom-of-the-barrel priced, sub-standard products -- and all of the associated software drivers required to get everything to work with both Windows AND the multitude of montherboards out there. There's just SO MUCH STUFF to sift through out there that it's a practical impossibility to get everything from every nickle-and-dime hardware manufacturer to work well with the operating system; Windows is simply too ambitious in that respect. On the other hand, Apple has been successful in making their computers "stable" because they completely control what hardware AND software that they choose to support, eliminating sub-standard 3rd-party products. Swtiching to an Intel-based processor has nothing to do with their support (or non-support) of all those 3rd party products.

NeXTSTEP for Intel (which I happen to still have a copy of around here somewhere) did something very similar; it would only run on 100% NeXT-qualified hardware components. Steve Jobs learned the lesson well back then, and he will continue with that today...except this time, he'll have even MORE control over the hardware box (since Apple still builds hardware).

Make no mistake; just because Apple is going to use the same kind of microprocessor that a Windows-based PC uses DOES NOT mean that Apple is going to build PCs. They'll still build the same kind of closed, controlled systems they've been building all along....and it'll still be a Mac.

Which is why many people think that NeXT bought Apple Computer, instead of the other way around... ;-)