i think all of my quotes are from MacLuv (i think your name is a good sign that you can't move away from apple even if you want to right?)
[quote] Apple is in no position to be picky about speed right now. By the time the 970 is ready to go to market, Intel will be so far ahead of the game Apple won't have a chance. A better speculation would assume that Apple is trying to devise a new business design that would allow the release of OS X onto x86. Thanks to Apple's own "processor wars", consumers are wise to CPU performance. If Apple doesn't approach a standard platform to compete head-on with Microsoft it will show a blatant disregard for the needs of its customers. From a business perspective, x86 offers a lower-priced performance solution with a standard upgrade pricing ramp. Investors are happy, customers are happy--it's a win-win across the board. All that is needed at this point is a strategy to make it work--and I'm not sure Mr. Jobs is our man for the task. <hr></blockquote>
why is intel itself moving away from x86 if this ISA offers a better price-performance than other solutions? do we know how many years x86 will stay in the game before it will be replaced by itanium or other cpus? how is multiprocessing with intels P4 by the way? is it an easy task like with the 970?
[quote] Supporting the release of the 970 as Apple's new "savior" chip is going to repeat a mistake that Apple has already made. IBM doesn't have the financial resources to compete with Intel. Regardless of "where" Intel and IBM say they will be at the same time technology-wise in the next few years, Intel will always come out ahead. They have the market. If Apple locks itself into PowerPC again, OS X, which Steve Jobs has slated as the "operating system for the next 15 years" is going to suffer. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, we've already been suffering <hr></blockquote>
ibm will build a new supercomputer with 120.000 Power5-processors for - ahem - big money
i think they will put enough of it in R&D to reach their final mark of a 10 times faster system than todays fastest (see top 500-supercomputer-list <a href="http://www.top500.org/list/2002/11/
ok apples sales are not as good as we all like them to be - but if they try to compete with Wintel they won't win the game. instead they're doing the right thing to be 'different' ... the computing-experience is a reason for buying a mac - not the performance. x86 won't change this. and if the 970 will top todays G4-performance to a factor of 3 performance will not be of any interest any more (cause anyone can have a machine that is as fast as the Wintels AND have all the benefits of the mac). if you like to explain why x86 should change the situation for apple at those points, please let us know.?.? again: apple can switch 4 to 16 970-cpus into their machines and let them fly with os x now. as far as i know the G4 we have now isn't that good in multiprocessing with >2cpus. and again - if you like to present us your experiences with pentium4-multiprocessing, please let us know.
[quote] Yes, Apple's profit design right now is based on perceived value rather than actual value. It is dependant upon people who do not yet realize PCs have become a commodoty market. It leeches off of what I call the Loyal Apple User Base (LAUB), locking us into a proprietary system that only Apple can control. Like you say, this means we pay extra for hardware that is outperformed by the competition--just because it looks pretty. <hr></blockquote>
i think x86 won't change the price of a mac!? i know the PCs and see that they all have problems - i don't know if it is windows or the cheap hardware which is the reason for these but i don't like to get a PC which stops working if i install some sofware or plug in a second graphics card. so i'm happy with mac and will be glad if i can continue to use my machine without re-configuring all the time. could be that os-x-on-x86 will change some of these problems but the machines would still be more expensive and will still look much better
[quote] Even if the migration to x86 seems unlogical from a developers' perspective, it can still be done. Everybody has a price. <hr></blockquote>
... for which customers have to pay more again for new HW/SW (from a business-standpoint) <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote] Apple took a risk with RISC and it didn't pay off. <hr></blockquote>
i like this sentence (really)
[quote] There is general speculation on this and other boards that Microsoft somehow would be able to fault XP on an AMD CPU if AMD supported Apple. Since AMD recently announced it is pursuing the technology rather than the market they are in a better position to support Apple. Big Blue has its own agenda, and if one recalls, the whole reason Motorola was brought into the AIM alliance is because Apple did not trust IBM. IBM, at any given time, presents so many conflicts of interest to Apple that it's not worth the risk, especially if Apple is counting on OS X to see Apple through the next 15 years. <hr></blockquote>
if microsoft will stop supporting x86-AMD-cpus we can see how x86 will die completely as AMD with their 64bit-on-x86-efforts are the only ones which will keep x86 alive. to this part another question: will x86 continue it's way up into the Ghz-heaven if intel will concentrate on itanium more and more? i thought the fast progress Mhz-wise is a result of the intel-AMD-x86-war? and can we trust intel more than IBM? can we trust AMD? i don't know...
could be that i've many things wrong in my post but if so,please try to explain a "normal" person (i hope i am) why x86 in an apple-mac will change all things or will be so much better? what excactly will be the benefit? what will apple so with the x86? will it sell less expensive macs? will iTunes or iMovie be better on x86? will i be happy? and why do you have an eMac? i thought you like to join the industry standard? i really don't get this ... i think i must be stupid. *oregs*