Great advice from the guy who drove Apple into the ground!

He shoulda stuck with tooth rotting junk food!

First Sculley made my teeth fall out of my head. Then he wrecked my computer. I have had enough of his c***.

Does anyone in the computer industry actually listen to what that ignorant idiot has to say?

wow what a stupid thing to say... where would the competition be if apple used intel chips.


where... theyd just be another peecee maker among peecee makers... that's not what apple wanted to be. sculley is a complete and total idiot and i think that how apple ended up when jobs was.. fired was proof of this


intel chips?!?!?! even AMD is kicking intels a**. (has been for a long time)

that for quite a while PPC chips out performed anything that Intel was offeriing. Motorola's inability to scale the chip to higher clock speeds has only been a problem for the last two or three years.

Not really... I just thought there should be ano opposing viewpoint seen.

If Apple had chosen Intel, then Intel wouldn't have had the incentive to improve their chips by increasing going the RISC route to keep up. I wouldn't say the current G5 chip is a mistake for Apple either.
A more significant mistake of Scully was not licensing the Mac OS in the late 1980's and early 90's when it could still have aborted Microsoft's Windows 3.1.

Mulder carried the X-files.
I did think it was cool when they put that bug in her nose.

First post! First post!
I got it Ma, I got first post!

The IBM chip has gotten Apple over one speed crisis (except for the PowerBooks, which lag significantly in speed compared to Wintel laptops), but there will be other crises. Apple could have freeloaded on the PeeCee world in a sense, not depending on anyone to make chips especially for its dwindling market share. Faster, cheaper, better.

I can remember the RISC hype at the time. "CISC chips are nearing their maximum capabilities at 200 Mhz, while RISC chips will be able to continue increasing in speed."

Boy was that prediction a little off.

Damn right! I cant believe our chips are stuck at 202mhz still! :-/

talking up bad ideas. Imagine if Apple had gone with Jobs instead of Sculley... M$ would be peddling pencils about now.

Intel indeed! What a looser...

This is great... another open statement that again proves all the naysayers about Apple and Steve Jobs as the one at fault.

From the Timeline in Apple's history... the one engineer that made some of the worst decisions that created many fork in the roads was the man resposible for creating Be OS... hmmm. I wonder if anyone knows who that was?

What year did Steve Jobs leave Apple? What Year did Bill Gates offer to help Apple open the OS with AT&T? What year did Apple pursue Intel with the Star Trek project?

Exactly... who was the CEO during this years? So who is this guy to tell the present crowd what Apple should of done?

What I always loved with Sculley is that he was never one to be afraid of making a total a** of himself.
I mean, woulda shoulda coulda, but when you bill yourself as a technology visionary and you have a track record as abyssymal as the dude's, some people would keep their piehole shut, but not Lil' Johnny. Amazing.

This being said, this is the second time in two weeks he pipes up, you know that something's brewing because this dork is trying to recreate a buzz around his name. You know where NOT to put your investment money...

I would love to see Macs running on X86 processors. They would be cheaper, and in most cases faster. And still run the same Mac OS and Mac apps that make the Mac experience what it is. I've heard from an Apple source that X86 Macs do exist in the labs over at Cupertino.

And that's the only reason he can make statements like that.

But be serious guys, are you telling me you absolutely loved the fiasco that was the G4 rollout? Take the covers off your eyes fools. I mean, they dropped the speed and raised the prices and subsequently fell WAY behind in processing power. You're all acting like the past 3 years have been cake for Apple, when in fact, it's been a slow downtrend for marketshare until recently.

talking up bad ideas. Imagine if Apple had gone with Jobs instead of Sculley... M$ would be peddling pencils about now.

Actually, Sculley changed several things about the Mac, esp. the most important, making them upgradeable/expandable. Jobs liked the 128K form factor. There was no need in his view for the user to need to update their system with memory or harddrives or whatever.

I would love to see Macs running on X86 processors. They would be cheaper, and in most cases faster. And still run the same Mac OS and Mac apps that make the Mac experience what it is. I've heard from an Apple source that X86 Macs do exist in the labs over at Cupertino.

Why would the Macs be cheaper? Just because they're using Intel chips? Keep in mind if they went Intel, there'd still be the Mac ROM, the proprietary mobo and chip sets. Its not like he's saying "let's get system 7 running on IBM-compatibles". He's saying "We should've gone with Intel to keep up with their speed claims on the PC side.

Apple was wrong.

" (except for the PowerBooks, which lag significantly in speed compared to Wintel laptops), "

Most PC laptops are SIGNIFIGANTLY SLOWER than the current PowerBook line.

You might be able to buy a PC laptop that is faster than the fastest PowerBook, but that certainly is NOT the normal PC laptop.

Also, most PC laptops have very crappy shared memory video whereas ALL Apple laptops, including the $999 iBook, have at least 32MB of dedicated DDR video memory and high quality chipsets. I challenge you to find a $999 PC laptop that has equivalent video support, battery life, and is as fast as the low end iBook.

I'm sure apple has built prototype macs on dozens of chips (intel, mips, alpha, AMD, sparc, etc...) They wouldn't be doing the R&D they are world famous for if they didn't.

I'm sure apple has some plan b's they can execute if things get tight... like OS X for intel or a hardware offering based on some other processor. But as long as there is life left in the PowerPC chip (and trust me there is. Apple is not IBM's only customer for this chip) there is no need to jump ship or offer a choice in their offering either. Apple has the remarkable ability to focus and not let anything that does not fit in their vision cloud it. Other companies like sun and sgi can't decide it they should stick with their CPU's or go with intel.. in the end they try both and loose on both.

You're a moron.

People who claim that Intel PCs are both cheaper and faster just simply do not know what they are talking about.

It is true that you can get a PC that is faster than most Macs, but it will also almost always cost more.

It is true that you can get a PC that costs less than any current Mac model, but those cheap PCs do not even come close to competing with the performance of Macs.

Currently the lowest priced new Mac from Apple is the $799 G4 eMac. However, you can buy older model Macs for less from other outlets. If you only want to spend $300-$400 for computer then you can find a refurb G3 iMac that will perform better than any $300-$400 Intel PC and monitor combo that you could find.

Sculley is a loser who screwed up Apple and is only trying to get into the limelight for bashing them, which he knows will stir up s*** (just like columnist Dvorak when he rags on Macs). This is an easy way to get attention and feed his ego, especially when he spews about things he obviously has no clue about.

"Monday Morning QB"

Puhlease, doesn't that describe every single one of you here who has no direct control, not now and not likely in the future, over the future of Apple?! This is hilarious.

Second, as for the idiotic statement that most PC laptops are significiantly slower than either PowerBook or iBook, I see Steve's Reality Distortion Field has really taken effect. Either that or you have been in a cave for the last three years with your iBook/Powerbook.

Check techbargains.com. Find Inspiron 1100 with Celeron 2 ghz and combo drive for $700 shipped free after rebate. I am sure that is so much slower than iBook. Or, an Inspiron 5150 for $1249 that has a 3 ghz CPU and GeforceFX5200 GPU. I am sure that is also slower than either the iBook and PowerBook too.

Of course, now that I proved you wrong, you are going to go for a moving target and try to shift the discussion to Microsoft/Windows/virus/security blah blah. Stop. I know most of you have ADD here so stay with me for a second. You guys are talking about hardware and trying to argue that Apple sells faster and better hardware for less money.

That is simply a lie and you are an idiot for believing it. I own an iBook. I am happy with it. I, however, did not buy it because it is cheaper and faster than Wintel laptop because that would be absurd thing to say.

I am trying to teach you a lesson here on a Mac forum because if you go out there and try to argue the above in public you'd be laughed at and your credibility shot. Not to mention you make us the other Mac users look like idiots and zealots.

"especially when he spews about things he obviously has no clue about."

Uh, he's spewing things from when he was at Apple. That's why he can say Apple was wrong when they thought that CISC and Intel would go by the wayside and RISC would rule. He's commenting on how the Apple team that went to Intel was wrong in their conclusions. And they were wrong. Instead the following happened:

CISC did fall by the wayside
Intel adopted RISC and put it into their platform
RISC (in an evolved state) does rule

Great: a technical analysis from the sugar water salesman.

but I'm not sure if Intel would've integrated RISC concepts into their chips so early if Apple didn't make the RISC scene so prominent. Also, I agree with an earlier poster that RISC was more superior and showed more promise at the time of the change and some time after.

" Find Inspiron 1100 with Celeron 2 ghz and combo drive for $700 shipped free after rebate. I am sure that is so much slower than iBook."

Yes, but does the 2ghz Celeron actually run at 2Ghz most of the time? NO. Only when plugged into the wall. Most of them run at 1/2 speed or thereabouts when on battery power.

You mean like how PowerBooks always run at their top speed? Nope, they can run at a lower speed on battery power also.

By signing over the rights to the look and feel of the Mac OS, Sculley sold the soul of Apple for absolutely nothing. Apple's patent infringement lawsuit against MS failed as a result. Sculley should have absolutely nothing to say about Apple, anything other than giant mea culpas over his dismal performance at the helm. It's too bad SJ wasn't confident enough to run the company himself back in the 1980s.

"It is true that you can get a PC that costs less than any current Mac model, but those cheap PCs do not even come close to competing with the performance of Macs."

Ok, so some of you do agree with the FACT (not opinion) that PCs are cheaper. Now let's talk about performance. What do you mean by performance? Rendering time? Calculation? FPS in games? MP3/MPEG-2/MPEG-4 encoding? Photoshop? Except in a few instances, at the same price range PCs outperform Mac in all those tests.

Why choose a Mac then? The reasons are too long to list: OS X, tight integration, support for Open Source, superior iApps, more secure, better design, etc.

However, don't say Macs are cheaper and faster than PCs because they are not.

Pretty sure my powerbook 550 runs full speed when using the battery. I've even done computational simulations with out as much as a slow mouse or screen scroll with or with out being plugged to the wall. Go check your specs. Mine doesn't need to clock down to save battery life. Does yours?

Yeah, my 386SX laptop also does not slow down when unplugged from the wall. Get out of your f****** cave idiot and stop livng in the past.

And come on, wheo does computationally intensive taks unplugged for hours on end?

John Scully, What colour is your parachute?

let's beat the horse, ... cuz it's dead.

>Why choose a Mac then? The reasons are too long to list: OS X, >tight integration, support for Open Source, superior iApps, >more secure, better design, etc.

I'm a former PC user who switched to Mac because of at least some of the above reason. My Powerbook is the best machine I've ever bought.

Don't get sucked into Micro$ofts arguments over raw power. Apple products are class. Do you ask someone if the Rolls-Royce goes faster than some teenager's hunk of junk hot rod?

"Check techbargains.com. Find Inspiron 1100 with Celeron 2 ghz and combo drive for $700 shipped free after rebate. I am sure that is so much slower than iBook."

There are no Inspiron 1100 or Inspiron 5150 laptops listed at techbargains.com

Anyway, you really ought to look at the specs on those Inspirons before you try to claim that it is faster than Mac laptops.

The Inspiron 1100 uses a scaled back 2Ghz Celeron with a wimpy 128K L2 cache and pathetically slow Intel shared memory graphics chipset. It is MOST DEFINITELY going to perform SIGNIFIGANTLY slower than an iBook using an 800MHz PowerPC G3 with 512K L2 cache and ATI Mobility Radeon 7500 with 32MB DDR dedicated video memory. The iBook would blow away the Inspiron 1100 in almost any real world benchmark. If you do not believe me then that only means that you do not realize how truly crappy "shared memory video" really is; not only does it reduce the amount of system memory that you have available, it also slows down the speed at which the system can access the remaining memory and of course it causes video memory access to be much, much slower than dedicated video memory access.

Also according to Dell's website ( http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/products/model_inspn_inspn_1100.htm ), the Inspiron 1100 is $799 before a $100 mail in rebate and shipping is not free. Also, if you go to Dell's website via the link above, you will find that it is nearly impossible to actually configure an Inspiron 1100 for $799. It is possible to configure one for less than the iBook's $999 price, but the $999 iBook will be faster, have twice the battery life, will include a FireWire port, and of course it will be preloaded with a lot of useful software.

"Or, an Inspiron 5150 for $1249 that has a 3 ghz CPU and GeforceFX5200 GPU. I am sure that is also slower than either the iBook and PowerBook too."

Again you need to go to Dell's website ( http://www.dell.com/us/en/bsd/products/model_inspn_inspn_5150.htm ) and actually research the specs on these laptops. The 5150 is indeed much better than the 1100, but that is not really saying a whole lot. Your 3Ghz processor is a MOBILE P4; have you ever seen the benchmarks on how the MOBILE P4 compares to the regular P4 and P3 processors? It sucks. If you want speed, you'd be better off with a 2Ghz P3 than the 3Ghz MOBILE P4. In addition to the fact that the 3Ghz processor gets clocked down to conserve battery life, the MOBILE P4 is also unable to take advantage of the Pentium 4 optimizations in Windows software. Thus it suffers horrendously in real world benchmarks and the Inspiron 5150 is easily outperformed by iBooks and PowerBooks.

Also, again, your pricing seems to be a bit off from reality. Before you claim to be able to buy an Inspiron 5150 for $1249, go to Dell's website and actually try to get one into your shopping cart.

"However, don't say Macs are cheaper and faster than PCs because they are not."

I do not think anyone here said that.

Apple users are used to paying full price for their machines. Not Pc users. Go to techbargains.com right now and search for 1100 or 5150, you will find it there and you will be able to get it at the prices I posted. Ditto are places like gotapex.com, dealnews.com, etc.

Celeron is an excellent performer becasuse it is a P4 chip with a little bit less cache. Check Tom's hardware. 3ghz P4-M is not bad too and I hate to burst your bubble but there is no 2ghz p3.

But I do see the point where you are going,: no matter how fast a PC chip is, say 8 ghz, it will always be slower than an 800 mhz G3.

Zealot.

You get what you pay for.

my pbg4 550 is slower than my collegues Dell portable, which incidently was cheaper. Talking about real world apps like DreamwaverMX, FlashMx, Photoshop, you name it.., etc

my pbg4 550 is slower than my collegues Dell portable, which incidently was cheaper. Talking about real world apps like DreamwaverMX, FlashMx, Photoshop, you name it.., etc. But then, overal my machine is down less often (viruses), it is really plug-and-play. Right, it feels like a Rolls Royce but sometimes I'd prefer faster car to do my work...