or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple confirms switch to Intel
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple confirms switch to Intel - Page 10

post #361 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sillyfool
Spend some more time on Slashdot. And Anandtech can be usefull some times: http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436


To quote Johan De Gelas ( of Aceshardware.com fame ), from the final section of that review:


The server performance of the Apple platform is, however, catastrophic. When we asked Apple for a reaction, they told us that some database vendors, Sybase and Oracle, have found a way around the threading problems. We'll try Sybase later, but frankly, we are very sceptical. The whole "multi-threaded Mach microkernel trapped inside a monolithic FreeBSD cocoon with several threading wrappers and coarse-grained threading access to the kernel", with a "backwards compatibility" millstone around its neck sounds like a bad fusion recipe for performance.

Agreed. Even IBM realized that mach was a waste of time and energy. Apple lost me, but not my wife, with the switch to X. I was never a fan of the nExt architecture and by extension X, and the few interface gains in X were offset by the losses. X could and still can't make its mind up. Is it a unix box? Is it mach? All of that has limited what could be done, and now that the hardware will be identical does open Apple up to some potentially unflattering comparisons. For all the talk in this thread about giving credit to Intel for producing competitive hardware, everyone should be willing to admit that MS can produce very competitive performance, as the linux folks have seen from time to time, especially in the enterprise space.
post #362 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by urp
Agreed. Even IBM realized that mach was a waste of time and energy...

Yup, me and Mach both left CMU at about the same time, so I had a bit of a soft spot for it. But facts-is-facts.

Quote:
For all the talk in this thread about giving credit to Intel for producing competitive hardware, everyone should be willing to admit that MS can produce very competitive performance, as the linux folks have seen from time to time, especially in the enterprise space.

Also true. There is much to be learned from the kids in Redmond. I remember reading Linus' postings a while after the second round of tests that showed Win2K beating Linux. Basically he said, OK, they beat us fair and square. We've got lots of work to do, let's get to it.
post #363 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
you have to remember that apple cannot afford to put all its eggs in intel products right now, once they decide to go intel intel has to commit in a certain way to support apple.

this means that there is still a significant level of investment (r&d, marketing, etc) in the powerpc product pipeline. i feel if they released intel-macs right now (even if it were possible), that would mean a lot of investment in powerpc goes straight into the trash.

You haven't convinced me yet. Effectively that investment is already in the trash, or more properly those are sunk costs. For the most part Apple isn't going to be able to sell both a PPC and a Mactel to the same customer in the span of 1.5 years. There is the very real risk that many of their customers will wait until they can buy an intel box, so releasing those boxes sooner rather than later mitigates that risk and gives Apple the best chance to minimize the losses of the transition. The only explanation for the delay that makes sense to me so far is that the translated performance really isn't all that great, and Apple is afraid that that will cause an even larger exodus than previous transitions have. Thus, they have to wait until native binaries are available and Rosetta really only exists to cover shareware and older, non-critical apps.

Quote:

with the current scenario.

1. they can recoup their investments on powerpc line by clearing their pipeline of powerpc Macs over next 1-2 years
2. they have powerPC fallback while intel Macs are developed
3. apple and intel have 6-12 months from today to deliver on intel-macs, this has to be pretty much flawless or apple is seriously screwed compared to xp/longhorn/linux on intel
4. they have to give time for the developers to come to grips with this
5. rosetta is very important but i agree, they have decided this is not enough. by apple's standards, fat binaries MUST be employed as far as possible*

*i think the core reason why rosetta won't cut it for the most part is because comparative benchmarks of many applications running on similarly spec'ed intel hardware may show windows/linux versions of those applications with a clear advantage over mac os X-rosetta'ed apps.

1. See above.
2. Apple must have been thinking about this for at least a few months. They should be able to produce volume units by the end of the year unless there are significant issues with locking down X-on-apple only. I doubt that is the case.
3. That's a risk for the rest of time now, and more on the software side than the hardware.
4-5. If Rosetta is really that fantastic, then they don't have to wait. As I said before, my hypothetical $1 is that Rosetta has been implicitly overstated.
post #364 of 425
I haven't read all of the posts about this but a good many and that got me to thinking.....

I agree that is was a bit of a shock for apple to go to intel, but the transition is going to be so painless, and in the end transparent to the end user as to be no big deal really....

...unless apple licenses their boxes (or reference platform) to HP.

Now you can buy an HP running OS X.

Apple controls the hardware, apple controls the software. HP can give their customers a choice of OS's, since 'winblows' will run on apple hardware.

Maybe HP will ship dual boot systems.

either way apple OS X is in front on many more eyeballs. This seems to be a little discussed win-win for apple.
post #365 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by urp
There is the very real risk that many of their customers will wait until they can buy an intel box, so releasing those boxes sooner rather than later mitigates that risk and gives Apple the best chance to minimize the losses of the transition. The only explanation for the delay that makes sense to me so far is that the translated performance really isn't all that great, and Apple is afraid that that will cause an even larger exodus than previous transitions have.

I think the issue is that Intel don't have the chips that Apple wants yet. Apple are not going to ship anything with a Pentium 4 or pentium D. I imagine they will start with Merom (for the mini) and migrate to the dual core Pentium-M derived desktops as they become available (hopefully with 64 bit enabled products). They needed to get the developers early, so that most of the important products will have been optimised for x86 by the time they are released...
post #366 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveLee
I think the issue is that Intel don't have the chips that Apple wants yet. Apple are not going to ship anything with a Pentium 4 or pentium D. I imagine they will start with Merom (for the mini) and migrate to the dual core Pentium-M derived desktops as they become available (hopefully with 64 bit enabled products). They needed to get the developers early, so that most of the important products will have been optimised for x86 by the time they are released...

The P4 660 that ships with the developer mactel box is 64-bit though.

Personally, I think that apple should try to accellerate the "intel recompilation" of third party apps as much as possible, and attempt to release mactel boxes as early as possible in 2006.

Knowing apple though, mactel boxes will probably not be avaliable before WWDC 06 though.
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #367 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
The P4 660 that ships with the developer mactel box is 64-bit though.

Personally, I think that apple should try to accellerate the "intel recompilation" of third party apps as much as possible, and attempt to release mactel boxes as early as possible in 2006.

Knowing apple though, mactel boxes will probably not be avaliable before WWDC 06 though.

The report on xlr8yourmac showed they were 660s but also mentioned that Apple were not supporting the 64 bit extensions (yet). My interpretation from the Keynote was that Apple are not going to ship any final product with a P4 in it (the dev boxes are just to get people on with doing any software changes needed).

I would imagine that Apple will ship something whenever the chips are ready (i.e. they won't go with Yonah either). The lag for the desktop switch is obviously to give Intel time to get something very competitive ready for the market. I would hope that by that time the 64-bit, low power, dual cores will be ready
post #368 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveLee
The report on xlr8yourmac showed they were 660s but also mentioned that Apple were not supporting the 64 bit extensions (yet). My interpretation from the Keynote was that Apple are not going to ship any final product with a P4 in it (the dev boxes are just to get people on with doing any software changes needed).

I would imagine that Apple will ship something whenever the chips are ready (i.e. they won't go with Yonah either). The lag for the desktop switch is obviously to give Intel time to get something very competitive ready for the market. I would hope that by that time the 64-bit, low power, dual cores will be ready

Yeah I read that too. I was surprised that Intel had 64-bit P4's out. obviously I havent payed enough attention to "the other side" of the market

I too hope that Apple will get something brilliant from Intel, something that is x86, but without all the legacy support that Apple obviously does not need. On the other hand, if Apple expects users to be able to run windows on the machines (and they stated they wouldn't try to hinder this), they will need all that legacy support in the CPU's as well...
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
Reply
post #369 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
Yeah I read that too. I was surprised that Intel had 64-bit P4's out. obviously I havent payed enough attention to "the other side" of the market

I too hope that Apple will get something brilliant from Intel, something that is x86, but without all the legacy support that Apple obviously does not need. On the other hand, if Apple expects users to be able to run windows on the machines (and they stated they wouldn't try to hinder this), they will need all that legacy support in the CPU's as well...

As someone who is disappointed with the problems that have dogged PowerPC I hope that it is the former that will be explored. Remember that PowerPC is an architecture that Apple helped create and it is disappointing that they have had to migrate. I hope that Intel will do something a little bit unusual for Apple (or at least begin to develop new directions for x86 to go). This might be a fantastic opportunity for Intel, given that Apple is also one of their OEMs, and they have no real need to support Windows for them.

I would hope that given a choice, Apple will definitely go for the 'let's be a little bit special' once again.

[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]
post #370 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveLee
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]

There's no way in hell the real Macs will ship with that next year. [Edit: And the reason I am so sure is that Intel has its own new standard, EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface, that it's been trying to push for some time now. I think it's clear that Apple will be implementing this in the new hardware rather than the usual BIOS trash.]
post #371 of 425
oh no... something just hit me like a ton of bricks. the thought of
"intel integrated graphics"
post #372 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveLee
[Edit: One thing that I was a little sorry to see was that the dev kits have a BIOS. If we are looking to a new direction, this may indicate it won't be as elegant as hoped.]

Don't worry -- be happy.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #373 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
oh no... something just hit me like a ton of bricks. the thought of
"intel integrated graphics"

on the flip side, the report on xlr8yourmac says that you might be able to run PC ati and nvidia stuff (at least on the dev machine), it's a question of the drivers...
post #374 of 425
hey moki, just wanted to say keep up the superb stuff on Ambrosia. all the best with this time of transition
post #375 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
There's no way in hell the real Macs will ship with that next year. [Edit: And the reason I am so sure is that Intel has its own new standard, EFI or Extensible Firmware Interface, that it's been trying to push for some time now. I think it's clear that Apple will be implementing this in the new hardware rather than the usual BIOS trash.]

(And Moki.)

OK, that is more encouraging. I haven't used OF much, but know that BIOS would be a big let down.

Do you think that this transition means we have also seen the end of cool features like Firewire disk target mode, or is it perfectly possible that Apple can build these in (is it an I/O type setup for the motherboard)?
post #376 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by DaveLee
(And Moki.)

OK, that is more encouraging. I haven't used OF much, but know that BIOS would be a big let down.

Do you think that this transition means we have also seen the end of cool features like Firewire disk target mode, or is it perfectly possible that Apple can build these in (is it an I/O type setup for the motherboard)?

Hell, using EFI you can run shell scripts, do TCP/IP networking... whatever. I think it's pretty safe to say that it offers some nifty features:

http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/firmware/

I realize there's a lot of uncertainty now, but have some faith in Apple... they generally want to do things in the best way possible. I'm sure we'll be seeing cool stuff from them no matter what the CPU is.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #377 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by FallenFromTheTree
Longhorn can't even find the door to the stable and it's feet are stuck in a big nasty fly infested pile of manure

You can search for Longhorn in Spotlight and find it in Tiger.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmissig/17582347/

8)
post #378 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by sunilraman
oh no... something just hit me like a ton of bricks. the thought of
"intel integrated graphics"

I understand that's what the developer machine is running. I really hope they don't ship with it, although it apparently support Quartz 2D Extreme. Anything else, while still the same physical card, will require OSX Intel drivers, which are up to ATI and Nvidea to write.
post #379 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
Don't worry -- be happy.

The problem is who owns EFI. The only people pushing it are Microsoft, Intel, and Intel OEM partners. Only Intel has an EFI implementation.

I have yet to see what makes EFI superior to OF:

1) Sun's implementation of OF (OpenBoot) also ran concurrently with the OS and could perform the monitoring tasks that EFI claims to.

2) bplan's implementation of OF in their Pegasos/Pegasos II/ODW products also supports generic PC video boards. BIOS backwards compatibility in other words. It would have been easier for Apple to do this, especially now that they're going to use x86.

3) There is already a free software implementation of OF.

4) I don't trust Intel with their DRM crap or their competence. Their firmware can access the hardware from under the OS, including the hard disk. Add to the fact that EFI is always running and can be accessed via network, you can have firmware viruses which spread regardless what OS you have installed and wreak havoc on your data.

I think I have good reasons to be worried.
post #380 of 425
ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there. i know apple is not "favoring" IBM right now because of their chip shortages, but isn't it worth it to get their hands on the cell. i mean common the cell practically uses the same kind of chip architecture and so WHY THE HECK NOT !!! few app and OS changes. So this seems like a stupid move.

Also i think that steve knows this and has anyone thought that this intel thing might just be a bridge until CELL has fully matured? also although Intel is big aren't they like the worst chip makers?

well as for me im going to be getting a second mac after this announcement. I'm sticking to the POWER PC . . . . . . . . for now

If anyone wants to explain this in more detail to me please e-mail
post #381 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by yourmom98
. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there.

It's just you
post #382 of 425
Quote:
it's just you

care to elaborate?
post #383 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by yourmom98
care to elaborate?

ok

Its just you who thinks the cell processor just smokes and beats any processor out there.
post #384 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by yourmom98
ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there. i know apple is not "favoring" IBM right now because of their chip shortages, but isn't it worth it to get their hands on the cell. i mean common the cell practically uses the same kind of chip architecture and so WHY THE HECK NOT !!! few app and OS changes. So this seems like a stupid move.

Also i think that steve knows this and has anyone thought that this intel thing might just be a bridge until CELL has fully matured? also although Intel is big aren't they like the worst chip makers?

If anyone wants to explain this in more detail to me please e-mail

In one of the WWDC follow ups, I seem to remember Steve (or someone from Apple) saying that the cell WAS considered, but it had two problems: (1) It wasn't a general purpose processor and (2) It would require a lot of code changes to use it (implying more than moving to Intel would). You'd have to search other forums for comparisions of cell vs "pc" processors. So Apple claimed that it wasn't a "few" changes to move to the cell, nor would it do everything that it needed (i.e., maybe Apple would need some bigger cell derivative)
post #385 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by the cool gut
ok

Its just you who thinks the cell processor just smokes and beats any processor out there.


Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #386 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by strobe
I don't trust Intel with their DRM crap or their competence.

I would trust Apple's competence. They know they have an excellent security edge over Windows and they wouldn't use EFI if it were as half baked as you seem to think.

Quote:
Their firmware can access the hardware from under the OS, including the hard disk. Add to the fact that EFI is always running and can be accessed via network, you can have firmware viruses which spread regardless what OS you have installed and wreak havoc on your data.

It is my understanding that the network stack is only available in the pre-boot environment. Once the OS loader is finished using whatever pre-boot services it needs from EFI, it calls an exit function and those services are no longer available to the system. I also doubt Intel would be stupid enough to have this network stack automatically open a port to which other computers on the network could connect and executive code. That would be ridiculous, Intel's engineers aren't morons.

EFI actually looks like it's probably better than Open Firmware. It seems like an evolved version of OF, so I'm not sure what the opposition to it is on your part.
post #387 of 425
well thanks for setting me straight on the CELL and the whole intel thing so i guess i' ll just have to cope with the fact G6 will be an intel. hopefully it will be called g6.
post #388 of 425
sorry i accidentally double posted
post #389 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
I would trust Apple's competence. They know they have an excellent security edge over Windows and they wouldn't use EFI if it were as half baked as you seem to think.

HA!

Just because Windows is a scum hole of viruses, worms, spyware, and trojans doesn't make Apple competent.

Read THIS! Especially the part about AMT:

Quote:
Conversely, Intel is heavily promoting what it calls "active management technology" (AMT) in the new chips as a major plus for system administrators and enterprise IT. Understood to be a sub-operating system residing in the chip's firmware, AMT will allow administrators to both monitor or control individual machines independent of an operating system.


Additionally, AMT also features what Intel calls "IDE redirection" which will allow administrators to remotely enable, disable or format or configure individual drives and reload operating systems and software from remote locations, again independent of operating systems. Both AMT and IDE control are enabled by a new network interface controller
post #390 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by strobe
HA!

Just because Windows is a scum hole of viruses, worms, spyware, and trojans doesn't make Apple competent.

Read THIS! Especially the part about AMT:

That is certainly cause for major concern but it has nothing to do with the EFI, the firmware end of things, which is what I was referring to.
post #391 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by AppleRISC
That is certainly cause for major concern but it has nothing to do with the EFI, the firmware end of things, which is what I was referring to.

Part of the whole trusted computing 'platform', if you will, is it has to be initialized from the beginning. If you wanted the kernel or a firmware driver to run within a trusted address space it would have to be initialized by the firmware.
post #392 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by strobe
Part of the whole trusted computing 'platform', if you will, is it has to be initialized from the beginning. If you wanted the kernel or a firmware driver to run within a trusted address space it would have to be initialized by the firmware.

You are, of course, right. I stand corrected. Any of these things would have to live in the firmware. But that's exactly how it will be circumvented. Intel is wasting its time, and so is Apple if it thinks this will be the holy grail of copy protection. It will fail. Miserably.
post #393 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by yourmom98
ok i dunno if this has been said. i dunno what the heck apple is doing. they have good relations with 2 of the 3 companies that make the cell processor. is it just me or does the cell processor just SMOKE AND BEAT any processor out there.

You really don't want to use a cell processor in a PC. They are great chips for certain very specific tasks. They have a scaled down PPC core with 8 DSP-like cores in them. Those DSP cores can do some pretty amazing things, but are difficult to program, and best suited for constrained problems.

You are not going to see cell processors used in workstations from anyone (IBM included) that compete well with general purpose processors. Apples and oranges, really.
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
Andrew Welch / el Presidente / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
Carpe Aqua -- Snapz Pro X 2.0.2 for OS X..... Your digital recording device -- WireTap Pro 1.1.0 for OS X
Reply
post #394 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by moki
You really don't want to use a cell processor in a PC. They are great chips for certain very specific tasks. They have a scaled down PPC core with 8 DSP-like cores in them. Those DSP cores can do some pretty amazing things, but are difficult to program, and best suited for constrained problems.

You are not going to see cell processors used in workstations from anyone (IBM included) that compete well with general purpose processors. Apples and oranges, really.

It really isn't so bad as you think. The Power core in the Cell is in-order, but its clock rate is very high. Even if you didn't use any of the SPEs for anything the machine would perform like a dual 970 @ ~1.5 GHz (for a 2-way SMT 4 GHz Cell Power core). And there are a lot of things it wouldn't have to do since the OS could offload tasks to the SPEs (all graphics, audio, video, and possibly networking). On the other hand, that isn't a leading edge number so obviously Apple doesn't feel it is good enough.
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
Providing grist for the rumour mill since 2001.
Reply
post #395 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by yourmom98
well thanks for setting me straight on the CELL and the whole intel thing so i guess i' ll just have to cope with the fact G6 will be an intel. hopefully it will be called g6.

a g6 Sextium
post #396 of 425
1/ BTW, Thanks to Programmer for your last replies.

2/ Regarding the CELL, did anyone by any chance already read this article from a guy named Paul Murphy. I just discovered it today.

Here's the link:

http://www.winface.com/inside/maccell.html

So, what do you think about it?

BTW, I'm still piss off with this IntelMac thing....
post #397 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfr3ak
2/ Regarding the CELL, did anyone by any chance already read this article from a guy named Paul Murphy. I just discovered it today.

Here's the link:

http://www.winface.com/inside/maccell.html

So, what do you think about it?

It was a pretty accurate and interesting read, up until the point where Mr Murphy decided to throw Sun into the mix. Of course, Sun's own President and COO recently blogged about how Apple should be using Solaris 10 on their Macs.
...we have assumed control
Reply
...we have assumed control
Reply
post #398 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by Programmer
It really isn't so bad as you think. The Power core in the Cell is in-order, but its clock rate is very high. Even if you didn't use any of the SPEs for anything the machine would perform like a dual 970 @ ~1.5 GHz (for a 2-way SMT 4 GHz Cell Power core). And there are a lot of things it wouldn't have to do since the OS could offload tasks to the SPEs (all graphics, audio, video, and possibly networking). On the other hand, that isn't a leading edge number so obviously Apple doesn't feel it is good enough.

I don't think that Apple made his decision on a leading edge number question, or any other marketing reasons.

The decision they took was a difficult one, they may have considered the cons and advantages of every solutions. The truth is , that the cell chip was not good enough for Apple.
post #399 of 425
Quote:
Originally posted by urp
Agreed. Even IBM realized that mach was a waste of time and energy. Apple lost me, but not my wife, with the switch to X. I was never a fan of the nExt architecture and by extension X, and the few interface gains in X were offset by the losses. X could and still can't make its mind up. Is it a unix box? Is it mach? All of that has limited what could be done, and now that the hardware will be identical does open Apple up to some potentially unflattering comparisons. For all the talk in this thread about giving credit to Intel for producing competitive hardware, everyone should be willing to admit that MS can produce very competitive performance, as the linux folks have seen from time to time, especially in the enterprise space.

You've missed Mac OS X. Check out the tech specs because it is way beyond a "few interface gains". The applications and key technologies are way beyond "unix" and "mach" confusions. BTW - this is a common misunderstanding for MS and unix users.
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
-JD
-- "If Apple wasn't so greedy, they would build G6's and give them away!"
Reply
post #400 of 425
Hi PowerDoc => You're meaning that Apple made his decision itself?

OK, but aren't we all talking about more than only one man's decision?

I guess he was quite sure and sincere to upset all of us while he couldn't tell that:

"Sorry, no 3 Ghz today"; OK, I guess we all did understand. Didn't we?

But, Was it worth for a full switch to Intel on the fly straight away? Have you expected a turning back like he did, say, 1 month ago for instance?

Are we all so sure by now that IBM with its own R&D dpt made the step on 2002 with APPLE could have only finished poorly 2 years after?

Will there be no more next-gen Chips till next year from IBM? Or is it a simple a personal revenge from some guy? Just wondering...

How about the Hi-tech Fab in NY? You know, the high-end video clip from IBM or APPLE (whatever it is) to be now used by : MS, SONY & NINTENDO?

Powerdoc, there're too many information missing I can't deal with, perhaps like you can't, but I can't honestly believe IBM is so naive and Apple so stupid within only a few months till today.

I won't pronounce the first 5 first letters begining in the word: INTELLIGENCE

PS: As a real French Mac lover with it's own broken speaking.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Apple confirms switch to Intel