Apple releases first Mac with Intel Processor
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 by Island Dog | Discussion:
At the Macworld Expo today, Steve Jobs introduced the first Mac's with Intel processors. The iMac's and the new "Macbook's" are the first to be introduced. They have also discontinued the "Powerbook" line. These new Macbooks are reportedly 4-5 times faster than previous Mac laptops.
More to be posted soon.....
Reply #2 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:03 PM
Reply #3 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:30 PM
| wonder if this development has to do with the reported appearance of viruses in Macs as of late. Or is this an independent factor? Any (tech) answer ? |
It is due to the fact that IBM and Motorola were not keeping pace with Intel and AMD. And Apple got tired of saying "Our processors may be slower, but we are RISC not CISC". Which was true to an extent. But not when INtel was doubling the clock rate of the PPC chips.
Reply #4 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:31 PM
Damn impressive.
Reply #5 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 2:53 PM
IBM's PowerPC chips were fast enough.
Just not cool enough.
And Motorola's were cool enough.
Just not fast enough.
Intel's chips are both cool and fast enough.
Reply #7 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:37 PM
| Damn nice specs and price on it too... Dual core 1.67GHz CPU, 15.4" screen (quality of their Cinema Displays), 512MB RAM, 80GB HDD, all sorts of widgets and gizmos, ATI Mobility X1600 128MB video... $2k. |
A leetle too high in price! Get that price down, and yea, now Windows gets some comeupance!
But you did not hear it from me!
Reply #8 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 6:37 PM
| don't think it's fair to say "IBM and Motorola"... IBM's PowerPC chips were fast enough. Just not cool enough. And Motorola's were cool enough. Just not fast enough. Intel's chips are both cool and fast enough. |
I was going for a Q&D explanation. Show off!
Reply #9 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 8:32 PM
It it my understanding through the years that Microsoft was always the main target for viruses and security flaws. I guess the main factor is because of the money-hungry corporation and trying to become a monopoly.
IMHO Macs have always had more of a creative following due to its graphics and sound capabilities, making it less of a target.
Further, if Macs and Linux/Unix do have security flaws and viruses, you simply don't hear about it because it's not "newsworthy."
Reply #10 Wednesday, January 11, 2006 7:58 AM
The dual-boot Mac's are on their way.
|
Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said in an interview Tuesday that the company won’t sell or support Windows itself, but also hasn’t done anything to preclude people from loading Windows onto the machines themselves. “That’s fine with us. We don’t mind,” Schiller said. “If there are people who love our hardware but are forced to put up with a Windows world, then that’s OK.” |
Reply #11 Wednesday, January 11, 2006 8:14 AM
| The dual-boot Mac's are on their way. |
I'm Getting one! Thanks for the post!
Reply #12 Wednesday, January 11, 2006 11:41 AM
| It it my understanding through the years that Microsoft was always the main target for viruses and security flaws. I guess the main factor is because of the money-hungry corporation and trying to become a monopoly. |
They are the target due to % of users. The majority of computers are Windows based. If you are going to be evil, don't you want to target the majority of users?
Reply #13 Thursday, January 12, 2006 7:42 AM
Maybe not.
|
With the announcement of the first Intel based Macs yesterday, many users have rejoiced in being able to dual-boot both Mac OS X and Windows. Unfortunately, this is not the case; due to Apple's use of the extensible firmware interface (EFI) rather than BIOS, current Windows releases will not run on the systems. On Tuesday at Macworld, Apple senior vice president of worldwide product marketing Phil Schiller said the company would not specifically block the use of Windows on Mac hardware. Instead, limitations in Windows itself will prevent its use on the new MacBook Pro laptop and iMac. |
http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_Wont_Run_on_Intel_MacBook_iMac/1137003330
Reply #15 Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:28 PM
| Intel's chips are both cool and fast enough. |
Yeah but Intel is so expensive compared to AMD not to mention AMD's chips perform better. Apple could have gone with AMD and dropped the price some with the Mac.
Reply #16 Friday, January 13, 2006 11:48 AM
Reply #17 Friday, January 13, 2006 12:44 PM
| Apple could have gone with AMD and dropped the price some with the Mac. |
There was wide speculation they would before the announcement. Kind of like the Underdog twins teaming up. I was a bit surprised they did do a deal with Intel instead.
Reply #18 Friday, January 13, 2006 5:55 PM
| Kind of like the Underdog twins teaming up. |
Mac just grew out of enduring one underdog [Motorola/IBM] why would they wish to associate with yet another?
Deathwish?...
Reply #19 Saturday, January 14, 2006 11:13 AM
| Mac just grew out of enduring one underdog [Motorola/IBM] why would they wish to associate with yet another? Deathwish?... |
They have been hitting on all cylinders lately, but just a few years ago, people were taking their temperature to make sure they were not dead!
But I see your point.
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
Reply #1 Tuesday, January 10, 2006 1:48 PM