Apple Is Doomed Along With Sun And Novell According To Mr. Bozo
Quote:
I also asked which companies would be dead. The panel agreed that it would be Apple, Sun and Novell. The panel also agreed that if it didn't run on the x86 architecture, it was likely gone. What was really interesting was that almost everyone I spoke with after this panel said that this x86 prediction was like predicting that the sun would rise in the morning -- in other words, that it was a given. Most participants felt that the future world of technology would be solidly based on standards and that anyone not using standards would be gone.
I also asked which companies would be dead. The panel agreed that it would be Apple, Sun and Novell. The panel also agreed that if it didn't run on the x86 architecture, it was likely gone. What was really interesting was that almost everyone I spoke with after this panel said that this x86 prediction was like predicting that the sun would rise in the morning -- in other words, that it was a given. Most participants felt that the future world of technology would be solidly based on standards and that anyone not using standards would be gone.
The complete article is here.
Comments
Einstein said
"Great spirits have always encountered
violent opposition from mediocre minds"
I for one and tired of hearing/reading the ramblings of mediocre minds.
Yea...Acer quality. It's going to take more than red plastic to make a 12" or 17" Apple PowerBook owner stop having a superior look!
8)
Yes, that gaudy red thing (way to latch on to that hip "colored computer" craze...) is certainly going to give me or any other iBook or PowerBook owner pause.
As if.
If anything, it might make me smirk more.
(j/k...I'm not a smirker...my superiority is well-masked with clothes from Target and a $8 haircut...I just LOOK harmless enough)
Originally posted by the cool gut
Since X86 seems to be the only way to go, isn't it odd that all 3 game consoles will be using the Power P.C.
Nice.
Well we know the xbox is going to use it and since the GameCube used it maybe Nintendo's next one will too but they haven't officially announced anything yet. Is the cell processor in the PS3 officially a "power pc" chip?
Originally posted by scavanger
Game Consoles have only used x86 once. That was the XBox. Most consoles ran custom chips. The Dreamcast had an SH4 for instance. Seeing game consoles as not using x86 is very common, and it has been the standerd from some time.
Are you still trolling around here? Why didn't you answer my question in the last thread you semi-started?
Common or not, it eludes to a flaw with the x86 chip family.
Originally posted by scavanger
Besides that doesn't elude to a flaw.
But it does. If a G5 is comparable in a home computer and better in a console, then there's a problem with the x86 chips. They're not as versatile.
Not trolling? Then how about that example I linked to in the previous thread?
The big difference between the choice of IBM or Intel/AMD is will Intel or AMD build you a chip to your specs? Will they add what you want and remove what you don't. AMD and Intel gave bids on what they could sell chips to MS for, IBM can custom build the chip. Game consoles want to have custom chips, so that t hey can tailor it to what they want.
It has nothing to do with the architecture. Its more of the standpoint of how much will you work with me. You trying to make a flaw in something that there isn't. x86 is highly more powerful in the fact that it's very useable in so many applications, RISC is more specialized in most applications.
Wait. It is: Intel said so. According to them, IA-64 is the future. If I'm not mistaken, the Itanium isn't an x86 chip (and I could well be wrong).
Originally posted by scavanger
You are comparing 2 completely different PC architectures. G5 is RISC, x86 is a CISC platform. CISC and RISC aren't as far apart as they used to be. There was a huge difference in the old days between the 2, nowadays RISC and CISC are hard to tell apart technical standpoint wise.
That's largely because the two categories are irrelevant. Chip designers these days use whatever works. If there's any distinction at all, it's whether the ISA keeps load/store instructions separate.
The big difference between the choice of IBM or Intel/AMD is will Intel or AMD build you a chip to your specs? Will they add what you want and remove what you don't. AMD and Intel gave bids on what they could sell chips to MS for, IBM can custom build the chip. Game consoles want to have custom chips, so that t hey can tailor it to what they want.
It has nothing to do with the architecture. Its more of the standpoint of how much will you work with me. You trying to make a flaw in something that there isn't. x86 is highly more powerful in the fact that it's very useable in so many applications, RISC is more specialized in most applications.
Your first paragraph is accurate. Your second needs help. First of all, there is no comparison between 'x86' and 'RISC'. Second, many of the so-called RISC platforms, like the 970, deviate wildly from pure RISC. Third, the idea that x86 is somehow usable in more applications than any "RISC" CPU defies comprehension. You're comparing an ISA to a processor design philosophy. If you want to compare ISAs, look at x86 and PowerPC: The PowerPC can do everything x86 can do, and it can also scale up to the POWER4 (which implements the PowerPC spec) and down to tiny embedded processors in PDAs and automobiles. PowerPC also has the advantage of being alive, well, and 64 bit since its introduction in 1994 (most Mac CPUs and embedded CPUs to date implement the 32 bit subset, but the ISA has always been 64 bit). x86 is being deprecated, has no clear path to 64 bit, and its author is trying to replace it with an architecture that's been an utter failure in the marketplace sofar (IA64).
Both the PowerPC and the x86 architectures have outlived their original design philosophies: The Pentium 4 is not a CISC chip in the original sense, nor is the IBM 970 a RISC chip in the original sense (there are RISC chips in the PowerPC family, though: The G3 is almost 100% pure RISC).
You also assume that IBM's ability to customize chips is only useful for embedded applications. It's also highly useful to Apple.
Do you just say 86 or what
And also worth noting is look at the products that come from it, I can't recall one at all that hit it big time that everyone at comdex thought was going to be the next toaster be all for computing.
Originally posted by Amorph
x86 is being deprecated, has no clear path to 64 bit, and its author is trying to replace it with an architecture that's been an utter failure in the marketplace sofar (IA64).
In short, then, these "analysts" are completely and utterly wrong. So I take it the sun won't rise tomorrow? Good, maybe I can quit working on this damn presentation....