<strong>Since when? Your whole agrument is based on ideology--BETA vs. VHS. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you know that the only reason VHS did succeed is because it was cheap enough for the US porn industry use it to release their movies? The conservative americans then of course had to buy a VHS player, thus beta went into oblivion.
That's btw one of the reasons the DVD players for the PC caught on sooner then people would really need it.
Do you know that the only reason VHS did succeed is because it was cheap enough for the US porn industry use it to release their movies? The conservative americans then of course had to buy a VHS player, thus beta went into oblivion.
That's btw one of the reasons the DVD players for the PC caught on sooner then people would really need it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey what other urban legends can you let me in on?
[quote]The processors are not more expensive. Apple wouldn't have to deal with the "full complexity" of a commodity motherboard if they didn't want to. As far as slowing down Apple--how much slower do we have to get before I can run along side the car? You're trying to support the 970 which, knowing Apple and IBM, won't be ready for another two years. GNU Darwin runs on AMD now. Using price, speed, or speculating R&D costs is no basis for this argument.<hr></blockquote>
And speculating releas times is? Also, I suggest you look up the prices of G4 compared to Pentium 4s, last time i checked G4s were considerably cheaper.
And speculating releas times is? Also, I suggest you look up the prices of G4 compared to Pentium 4s, last time i checked G4s were considerably cheaper.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, are those retail prices you're looking at? Somehow I don't think Apple would take a shopping cart over to the nearest COMP USA.
And just so you don't come back and cut&paste some "discount brokers chip warehouse price comparison"-- we're talking about the possibility of AMD providing OEM chips to Apple. I'm sure they wouldn't need Bob Barker to make sure the price is right.
<strong>Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about the fact that IBM is cutting edge technology with millions to invest in R&D on new chip technologies and they have some of the best, reliable and fastest workstations and servers on the planet? Or the fact that they have the best chip manufacturing capabilities in the world. 90nm? No problemo, <a href="http://www.charteredsemi.com/media/corp/2002n/20021127_1.asp"; target="_blank">3Q 2003</a>. How about 45nm? Can AMD touch that? Are you truely that dense? What does AMD bring to the table in terms of long-term stability and reliable manufacturing? Not much more than Motorola did way back when. Look at them now. Not to mention the fact that their CEO is spouting some marketing BS about how companies should stop releasing technology or technology's sake and introduce innovative products. Pot, meet kettle, if you ask me. IBM is where the future lies for Apple.
What does ugly and unwieldy have to do with anything? I'm not going to put it on my coffee table. It's going into a BOX. You do realize this is how DELL and other PC manufacturers makes a living, right?
Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple. <hr></blockquote>
What does Apple need?
A absolute need is a CPU that at least keep up with the competition and will do that over an extended persiod of time (scales well to higher clock speeds).
With Mac users in the middel of a transition to OS X having a transition to a new CPU type would be tricky. Also after spending 3 years about how good the velocity engine is it is hard to scrap that (on the other hand during those 3 years most Macintoshes sold does not have that VE!)
How many CPU manufactures do develop and and build CPUs compatible with the G3 & G4? Motorola and IBM is the list. IBM is the only one interested in buildning desktop CPUs, so there we are.
So Apple will be stuck with only one CPU supplier. 1984 to 1994 Motorola was the only source of CPus for Apple.
Apple can either go with the IBM 970 or design their own chip and have somebody else manufacture it.
One good thing for Apple is Linux as it run on many platforms and assumingly also on the 970 when it comes out. For IBM it ought to be better to sell Linux boxes with their own 970 CPU than something from Intel or AMD. For making money on that hardware those CPUs have as good performance/price ratio as those x86 boxes
I am really hoping for Linux IBM 970 boxes for that price performance race. For IBMs UNIX work stations with a pricetag above 10 000 a slower CPU can be compensated by simply having 2 or 4 CPUs without affecting the overall cost that much, as they did with the RS 6000 with 604E CPUs.
For some years at least Apples CPU supplyer will be IBM so Apple should try to make themself as important as they can by making IBM as happy as possible for having them as customers. That is not so difficult: simply buy many, many CPUs that IBM make.
With the MB redesign for the 970 I hope Apple take care of some glaring shortcomings like the whole audio managment. Multimedia is not equal to moving images it should include sound as well. In this regard the Mac is way behind windows boxes. I think that the migration from mono to stereo sound came with the quadras 10 years ago and since then not much has happened.
With the MB redesign for the 970 I hope Apple take care of some glaring shortcomings like the whole audio managment. Multimedia is not equal to moving images it should include sound as well. In this regard the Mac is way behind windows boxes. I think that the migration from mono to stereo sound came with the quadras 10 years ago and since then not much has happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i agree with most of your post. but the audio-subsystem of os x is one of the best in the os-world with a very very low latency. as far as i know they have something in mind when buying Emagic with their Logic-Audio series and music-hardware. we will see a big step forwards in these area...
i agree with most of your post. but the audio-subsystem of os x is one of the best in the os-world with a very very low latency. as far as i know they have something in mind when buying Emagic with their Logic-Audio series and music-hardware. we will see a big step forwards in these area...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, Apple needs proper hardware-support for the technology too. Stereo 24-bits, 44,1KHz support doesn't cut it any longer in the consumer's eyes, 5/6/7.1 24-bits/96KHz does... but I hope for something groundbreaking, even though I can't even imagine what that would be.
Unless you mean something like some second generation surround, something more real than the standard 5-7/.1-systems used in most/many PC's right now, I'm still having problems picturing how 'Surround Sound' can be really groundbreaking.
Comments
<strong>GNU Darwin runs on AMD now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And?
<strong>
So, how does this make IBM financially stronger to compete?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Huh? The fact that they have more money?
IBM are competing with Intel already.
<strong>
Excuse me? Hey, have you read the board rules lately? I take offense to that remark.
Ha! Trollee trollee troll troll!! Yer a big fat Trooooooooll!! Trollee trollee troll troll!! Yer a big fat Trooooooooll!!
Round these parts, when we see a chink is someones armour, we stab them there and twist!
And i take offense that you take offense at our remarks!
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Outsider ]</p>
TROLL!!!
;^p
Macintosh & x86; an unholy matching that should never be allowed to happen...
<strong>Since when? Your whole agrument is based on ideology--BETA vs. VHS. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you know that the only reason VHS did succeed is because it was cheap enough for the US porn industry use it to release their movies? The conservative americans then of course had to buy a VHS player, thus beta went into oblivion.
That's btw one of the reasons the DVD players for the PC caught on sooner then people would really need it.
<strong>what happened to the thread "Finally and interesting G5 story" . This ain't it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's the opposite of evolution? Deevolution? It deevoluted.
<strong>... I would spend less time insulting other people's intelligence...</strong><hr></blockquote>
what intelligence?
<strong>
Do you know that the only reason VHS did succeed is because it was cheap enough for the US porn industry use it to release their movies? The conservative americans then of course had to buy a VHS player, thus beta went into oblivion.
That's btw one of the reasons the DVD players for the PC caught on sooner then people would really need it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hey what other urban legends can you let me in on?
<strong>
And?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, you've convinced me with one word of a rebuttal to a quote taken completely out of context... and that word is... and?
And how about Apple getting a faster chip in a box before the year 2005?
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
And speculating releas times is? Also, I suggest you look up the prices of G4 compared to Pentium 4s, last time i checked G4s were considerably cheaper.
<strong>
And speculating releas times is? Also, I suggest you look up the prices of G4 compared to Pentium 4s, last time i checked G4s were considerably cheaper.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry, are those retail prices you're looking at? Somehow I don't think Apple would take a shopping cart over to the nearest COMP USA.
And just so you don't come back and cut&paste some "discount brokers chip warehouse price comparison"-- we're talking about the possibility of AMD providing OEM chips to Apple. I'm sure they wouldn't need Bob Barker to make sure the price is right.
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
How about the fact that IBM is cutting edge technology with millions to invest in R&D on new chip technologies and they have some of the best, reliable and fastest workstations and servers on the planet? Or the fact that they have the best chip manufacturing capabilities in the world. 90nm? No problemo, <a href="http://www.charteredsemi.com/media/corp/2002n/20021127_1.asp"; target="_blank">3Q 2003</a>. How about 45nm? Can AMD touch that? Are you truely that dense? What does AMD bring to the table in terms of long-term stability and reliable manufacturing? Not much more than Motorola did way back when. Look at them now. Not to mention the fact that their CEO is spouting some marketing BS about how companies should stop releasing technology or technology's sake and introduce innovative products. Pot, meet kettle, if you ask me. IBM is where the future lies for Apple.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Rhumgod ]</p>
<strong>
Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple.
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why do we have to convince you of anything? It's Apple choice and there's only and they could care less what you think is the best move.
Opps, damn, that peanut slipped out of my hands, sorry guys.
<strong>
What does ugly and unwieldy have to do with anything? I'm not going to put it on my coffee table. It's going into a BOX. You do realize this is how DELL and other PC manufacturers makes a living, right?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Development time, costs and viability.
Not one post in this thread has convinced me that IBM is the right choice for Apple. <hr></blockquote>
What does Apple need?
A absolute need is a CPU that at least keep up with the competition and will do that over an extended persiod of time (scales well to higher clock speeds).
With Mac users in the middel of a transition to OS X having a transition to a new CPU type would be tricky. Also after spending 3 years about how good the velocity engine is it is hard to scrap that (on the other hand during those 3 years most Macintoshes sold does not have that VE!)
How many CPU manufactures do develop and and build CPUs compatible with the G3 & G4? Motorola and IBM is the list. IBM is the only one interested in buildning desktop CPUs, so there we are.
So Apple will be stuck with only one CPU supplier. 1984 to 1994 Motorola was the only source of CPus for Apple.
Apple can either go with the IBM 970 or design their own chip and have somebody else manufacture it.
One good thing for Apple is Linux as it run on many platforms and assumingly also on the 970 when it comes out. For IBM it ought to be better to sell Linux boxes with their own 970 CPU than something from Intel or AMD. For making money on that hardware those CPUs have as good performance/price ratio as those x86 boxes
I am really hoping for Linux IBM 970 boxes for that price performance race. For IBMs UNIX work stations with a pricetag above 10 000 a slower CPU can be compensated by simply having 2 or 4 CPUs without affecting the overall cost that much, as they did with the RS 6000 with 604E CPUs.
For some years at least Apples CPU supplyer will be IBM so Apple should try to make themself as important as they can by making IBM as happy as possible for having them as customers. That is not so difficult: simply buy many, many CPUs that IBM make.
With the MB redesign for the 970 I hope Apple take care of some glaring shortcomings like the whole audio managment. Multimedia is not equal to moving images it should include sound as well. In this regard the Mac is way behind windows boxes. I think that the migration from mono to stereo sound came with the quadras 10 years ago and since then not much has happened.
<strong>
With the MB redesign for the 970 I hope Apple take care of some glaring shortcomings like the whole audio managment. Multimedia is not equal to moving images it should include sound as well. In this regard the Mac is way behind windows boxes. I think that the migration from mono to stereo sound came with the quadras 10 years ago and since then not much has happened.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i agree with most of your post. but the audio-subsystem of os x is one of the best in the os-world with a very very low latency. as far as i know they have something in mind when buying Emagic with their Logic-Audio series and music-hardware. we will see a big step forwards in these area...
<strong>
i agree with most of your post. but the audio-subsystem of os x is one of the best in the os-world with a very very low latency. as far as i know they have something in mind when buying Emagic with their Logic-Audio series and music-hardware. we will see a big step forwards in these area...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, Apple needs proper hardware-support for the technology too. Stereo 24-bits, 44,1KHz support doesn't cut it any longer in the consumer's eyes, 5/6/7.1 24-bits/96KHz does... but I hope for something groundbreaking, even though I can't even imagine what that would be.
<strong> but I hope for something groundbreaking, even though I can't even imagine what that would be.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Picture this: "Surround sound" !
<strong>
Picture this: "Surround sound" !</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless you mean something like some second generation surround, something more real than the standard 5-7/.1-systems used in most/many PC's right now, I'm still having problems picturing how 'Surround Sound' can be really groundbreaking.
Someone will need to enlighten my mind