CONFIRMED: Apple will NOT use AMD in the near future

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>

    You're building a mountain out of a molehill by trying to convince me that Ruiz is liable to stockholders for what he "didn't" say.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    But that is just it. He DID say something.



    I think we can all agree that Ruiz said something (be it one thing or anotehr, he did say something). Therefore, what he said he is liable for.



    We may not be able to convince you that what he said was they and Apple have no agreement. that is fine, you can have your opnion. But you can't argue that nothing was said (clearly somethign was said, it is written down in an article what he said). You also can't argue that he can't be held liable for what he did say.



    Had he said "Apple sucks, and there is no way in hell we would have an agreement with them.", it is obvious what he is saying, and is clear that if there was an agreement he could be sued big time. Since he said "First of all, I have no indication that Apple is even considering what we make" that means that he has no indication that Apple is considering what AMD makes. If he knws they are considering somethign, he lied. Flat out.
  • Reply 42 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>

    FYI-- I wasn't comparing Enron to Microsoft. Read my post again before you start flaming me. In fact, read this entire thread again before you start flaming people. You've obviously come in the middle of a conversation. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Um.. I stated the thread, and have replied to a few posts. Maybe you need to reread the thread...



    At any rate, I would argue that what Microsoft did was way worse than what Enron did. You obviously do not agree.



    What I was getting at in my last post was that I would not be surprised if Microsoft started pulling crap where they blocked AMD chips (or somethign to that effect). You seem to think they are scared after the antitrust case, but I would bet they now feel like they could do anything, and get away with it.
  • Reply 43 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:

    <strong>I just don't quite understand the apparent denial you're in regarding a clear, unambiguous, legally binding statement. I'm sorry your dreams of an AMD Macintosh aren't coming true (yet).

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I believe this is the statement you're referring to:



    [quote] First of all, I have no indication that Apple is even considering what we make. <hr></blockquote>



    If you think this is a clear, unambiguous, legally binding statement, then I'm not the one in denial.



    Furthermore, I do not wish to pursue your argument any further.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 44 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>



    If you think this is a clear, unambiguous, legally binding statement, then I'm not the one in denial.



    Furthermore, I do not wish to pursue your argument any further.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    How is it not clear, and ambiguous? to me (and a few others) it seems to be as clear as day (well a non-cloudy day, with minimal smog).



    [sarcasm]

    You can't give up on this thread yet, you just hit the 30-smilies-in-a-single-thread-by-one-person mark, and only have 3 posts out of 21 with no smilies! Keep this up, and I am sure you are guarenteed a place in AI legendry!

    [/sarcasm]



    BTW is there a list of the AI legends? If not, there should be.
  • Reply 45 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by mmicist:

    <strong>

    Why do you believe that IBM cannot compete with Intel on processors, {i've snipped the rest becuase frankly i have no idea what you're trying to talk about after this bit..}</strong><hr></blockquote>



    One question: Who is IBM going to sell processors to and who is Intel going to sell processors to?



    Who will have a bigger piece of pie?



    I don't care who IBMs customers WILL BE. I care about who IBMs customers are NOW. Because what IBM WANTS and what IBM WILL GET are two different things.



    IBM can't compete with Intel right now, so why do people assume that they are going to be able to compete with them in the future?
  • Reply 46 of 103
    what I was trying to point out was that die sizes have increased not set records for smallness. The record being set by the Itanium. Yes you are right that the P4 3.06Ghz chip runs around 82 Watts however as I thought I clearly stated with HT enabled it hits 105 Watts. A switch to the next smaller process isn't likely to get them much if they push the clock speed higher as well.



    Yes I am aware that there are x86 poertables out there. I have had to do support on a number of them being used with projector systems. They are painfully slow and have either crippled versions of desktop chips in them or desktop chips running at much lower than rated speeds. The advantage we have enjoyed with PPC is just as Amorph has stated. Lower power consumption, lower heat and better computing power in a portable.



    I melted through a vinal table cloth one time with a x86 laptop that was plugged into the wall. That would never happen with my Powerbook.



    The point that both of us were trying to make with this was that if you switch Apple's portable products over to x86 as well as the XServe, you make them unremarkable and underpowered. The only reason the XServe got the attention it did from the IT market was because the only single rackmount server solutions especially dual processor models, in the x86 world had to use Pentium 3 chips to avoid melting down.



    [quote] IBM can't compete with Intel right now, so why do people assume that they are going to be able to compete with them in the future? <hr></blockquote>



    Because things can change and do from time to time. I think that Intel is burning it's candle at both ends. It can't last forever.



    You know, if you took all the mass corporate purchases of PC's, most of which go to people who barely know how to click on an icon and are certainly not advocates of one platform or another, and reduced those sales to a single PC (or to the number of people involved in specifying and approving the purchase) the x86 market share would not look nearly as good as it does. These people don't count in the market share wars as far I'm concerned. That's also part of where your "standard" comes from.



    The platform itself whcih is of course the final product is by no means standard but a mish mosh of hardware and firmware from a long list of manufacturers. You can't just go by the processor.



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: nebcon65 ]



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: nebcon65 ]</p>
  • Reply 47 of 103
    Pentium4 3.06GHz = 81.8 watts



    Nothing about with or without HT, so where do you get your info?



    Still high though.



    <a href="http://www.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/thermal.htm#Specifications"; target="_blank">http://www.intel.com/support/processors/pentium4/thermal.htm#Specifications</a>;



    -edit-



    Found it!



    As far as I know, no x86 CPU has dissipated so much heat as the 3.06 GHz Pentium 4 with HyperThreading. The maximum power dissipation will never occur in the real world, as this can only be reached with special "thermal viruses." Luckily, the Pentium 4 has a very efficient heatspreader and a good clamping mechanism. We could not measure temperatures higher than 57°C with a decent cooler.



    Pentium 4 3.06 GHz Typical 81 W Max +/- 105 W

    <a href="http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000320"; target="_blank">http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=50000320</a>;



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: [email protected] ]</p>
  • Reply 48 of 103
    willoughbywilloughby Posts: 1,457member
    Tonton you made your point like 10 posts ago. The intelligent ones in the crowd got it. Don't waste your time with this troll.
  • Reply 49 of 103
    brbr Posts: 8,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Spart:

    <strong>I don't think an Opteron would need an AltiVec unit to give it punch.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That isn't the point. Abandoning something that Apple had to convince skeptic developers to adopt only a few years after it is introduced would definitely hurt Apple.
  • Reply 50 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:

    <strong>Goodness, MacLuv, from an economic point of view, you need to realize that competition is a good thing?.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, I'm glad you realize this. So who's Apple competing with right now?



    Apple has us locked into a revolving door business model. How does that demostrate complete dedication to competitive practices?



    [quote]<strong>

    What you're saying is that everyone should conform and adopt the most popular product, no matter what, because that company will always have the better product because they can spend more on R&D. Uh... no.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    No? Perhaps you don't grasp the concept of industry standards very well. This famous memo from Bill Gates sums it up nicely. It seems things haven't changed since 1985, either.



    [quote] To: John Sculley, Jean Louis Gassee

    From: Bill Gates, Jeff Raikes

    Date: June 25, 1985

    Re: Apple Licensing of Mac Technology



    cc: Jon Shirley



    Apple's stated position in personal computers is innovative technology leader. This position implies that Apple must create a standard on new, advanced technology. They must establish a "revolutionary" architecture, which necessarily implies new development incompatible with existing architectures.



    Apple must make Macintosh a standard. But no personal computer company, not even IBM, can create a standard without independent support. Even though Apple realized this, they have not been able to gain the independent support required to be perceived as a standard.



    The significant investment (especially independent support) in a "standard personal computer" results in an incredible momentum for its architecture. Specifically, the IBM PC architecture continues to receive huge investment and gains additional momentum. (Though clearly the independent investment in the Apple II, and the resulting momentum, is another great example.) The investment in the IBM architecture includes development of differentiated compatibles, software and peripherals; user and sales channel education; and most importantly, attitudes and perceptions that are not easily changed.



    Any deficiencies in the IBM architecture are quickly eliminated by independent support. Hardware deficiencies are remedied in two ways:



    * expansion cards made possible because of access to the bus (e.g. the high resolution Hercules graphics card for monochrome monitors)



    * manufacture of differentiated compatibles (e.g. the Compaq portable, or the faster DeskPro).



    The closed architecture prevents similar independent investment in the Macintosh. The IBM architecture, when compared to the Macintosh, probably has more than 100 times the engineering resources applied to it when investment of compatible manufacturers is included. The ratio becomes even greater when the manufacturers of expansion cards are included.



    Conclusion:



    As the independent investment in a "standard" architecture grows, so does the momentum for that architecture. The industry has reached the point where it is now impossible for Apple to create a standard out of their innovative technology without support from, and the resulting credibility of other personal computer manufacturers. Thus, Apple must open the Macintosh architecture to have the independent support required to gain momentum and establish a standard.



    The Mac has not become a standard



    The Macintosh has failed to attain the critical mass necessary for the technology to be considered a long term contender:



    a. Since there is no "competition" to Apple from "Mac-compatible" manufacturers, corporations consider it risky to be locked into the Mac, for reasons of price AND choice.



    b. Apple has reinforced the risky perception of the machine by being slow to come out with software and hardware improvements (e.g. hard disk, file server, bigger screen, better keyboard, larger memory, new ROM, operating software with improved performance). Furthermore, killing the Macintosh X/L (Lisa) eliminated the alternative model that many businesses considered necessary.



    c. Recent negative publicity about Apple hinders the credibility of the Macintosh as a long term contender in the personal computer market.



    d. Independent software and hardware manufacturers reinforced the risky perception of the machine by being slow to come out with key software and peripheral products.



    e. Apple's small corporate account sales force has prevented it from having the presence, training, support, etc. that large companies would recognize and require.



    f. Nationalistic pressures in European countries often force foreign to consumers [sic] choose local manufacturers. Europeans have local suppliers of the IBM architecture, but not Apple. Apple will lose ground in Europe as was recently exhibited in France. <hr></blockquote>





    [quote]<strong>

    Apple bucked this trend against IBM (business PCs) and succeeded quite nicely.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    What trend? Apple made the first PC. IBM made the second PC. Apple didn't license it's software to IBM. Microsoft did. Do you need a history lesson?



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />



    [quote]<strong>

    Let's all drive Toyotas and watch Sonys and wear Gap shirts. That's the ticket.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>

    It's funny you should mention the GAP. Did you know Steve Jobs just resigned from the board at the GAP to avoid possible incrimination due to conflict of interest with Millard Drexler? Millard Drexler used to be the CEO of the GAP. He's been helping formulate the strategy of Apple stores with his knowledge of running the GAP. Ever wonder why the Apple stores look like the GAP? Doesn't look like Apple is thinking much different these days, does it?



    [quote]<strong>

    And suppose AMD finally kill Intel (who have a larger R&D budget but are still losing in terms of tech); with IBM and Moto out of the picture, AMD will become an all-consuming Gatesian bully. Just what we need.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, that's a nice bedtime story. I'm off to sleep now.



    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
  • Reply 51 of 103
    bigcbigc Posts: 1,224member
    Yeah. it's 6AM in Moo Zealand and the trolls need to get back under the bridge. Try some Night Nurse, maybe that'll help.
  • Reply 52 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    4. Excessive ad-hominem attacks of forum members will not be tolerated. We understand that things get heated (especially in Fireside Chat), but it helps to maintain a modicum of respect for the membership. Attack ideas, not people. Be open-minded and try to help foster meaningful discussion (yes, meaningful discussion is possible if everyone respects each other).



    Hey, how about that for a board rule, eh?



    Why don't you guys take turns practicing it.
  • Reply 53 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>



    One question: Who is IBM going to sell processors to and who is Intel going to sell processors to?



    Who will have a bigger piece of pie?



    I don't care who IBMs customers WILL BE. I care about who IBMs customers are NOW. Because what IBM WANTS and what IBM WILL GET are two different things.



    IBM can't compete with Intel right now, so why do people assume that they are going to be able to compete with them in the future?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Look, if you're going to reply to my post, would you mind answering the question. I didn't question whether IBM can compete with Intel (although I could), but whether Apple can compete with Microsoft.



    michael
  • Reply 54 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by mmicist:

    <strong>



    Look, if you're going to reply to my post, would you mind answering the question. I didn't question whether IBM can compete with Intel (although I could), but whether Apple can compete with Microsoft.



    michael</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'm sorry. This was your original post:



    [quote]



    Why do you believe that IBM cannot compete with Intel on processors, because of the resources that Intel have available, and that x86 is an effective standard, whereas Apple can compete with Microsoft?



    Intel has a much lesser market share of the processor market than Microsoft has of the OS market, Intel's market cap. is slightly less than that of IBM, whereas Microsoft's is nearly 60 times Apple's. If you cannot fight a standard on the hardware front, how can you on the software front. (Even more so if you consider that Microsoft are known to have abused their monopoly before.)



    Only one possible conclusion, might as well give up now.

    <hr></blockquote>



    There's a lot of fluff in that post.



    "I didn't question whether IBM can compete with Intel (although I could), but whether Apple can compete with Microsoft."



    <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> Okay.



    Next time, just say "MacLuv, do you think Apple can compete with Microsoft?"



    And I'll say, "It's supposed to be competing with Microsoft, not just letting in PC refugees"



    Hope this answers your question better. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



    <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 55 of 103
    ed m.ed m. Posts: 222member
    [[[x86 isn't the industry standard processor. It's a common ISA. And that's entirely because of Windows. The fact that it's on more desktops than any other CPU doesn't mean that it's an common platform, because it has a big, aggressive gatekeeper whose product runs on nearly every single one of those desktops. The fact that it's not a common platform - a standard in the sense that the PPC is, say, or ARM - moots the fact of its ubiquity.]]]



    The fact is that MacLuv is a troll... That much has already been revealed in his posts.



    He speaks of "fallacies", yet he himself is committing the biggest one of all...





    (Slothful induction) -- The conclusion of a strong inductive argument is continuously denied despite reasonable evidence to the contrary. And then there is his overwhelming aura of Self-righteousness -- He actually believes that his intentions are "good" while attempting to *enlighten* all of us. I'm surprised PROGRAMMER didn't make a surprise appearance to abruptly put him in his place lol. In all, his thoughtful contributions are confused with what's the more likely the truth in this instance.



    The other thing is that I'll bet that there are many times more PPC's on the market than there are X86 processors. Just look at the embedded market. They aren't using x86. Can you guess how many PPC CPUs are being used in all those commercial airline jets, military units, cameras, race cars, consumer automobiles etc.?? Apple IS NOT the sole user of PowerPC based processors. I'm guessing that processor-per-processor PPC outnumbers x86 by a large margin.





    [[[One question: Who is IBM going to sell processors to and who is Intel going to sell processors to?Who will have a bigger piece of pie?]]]



    Well, PPCs already outnumber X86 processors. x86 is primarily used for the desktop, which is a small market compared to the embedded space and the one I think you are referring to. It's all relative. In your case, it how you like to bake the numbers, eh? Remember, Apple isn't the only one using the PowerPC...



    --

    Ed M.
  • Reply 56 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>

    And I'll say, "It's supposed to be competing with Microsoft, not just letting in PC refugees"



    Hope this answers your question better. Sorry for the misunderstanding.



    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    The main point is that it is not competing directly with Microsoft, it is primarily a hardware company. Switching to x86 would put it directly in competition with Microsoft.

    The other point is that you argue that it is impossible to compete with an effective standard, and yet Apple should move into such a position in order to survive.



    michael
  • Reply 57 of 103
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>

    What trend? Apple made the first PC. IBM made the second PC. Apple didn't license it's software to IBM. Microsoft did. Do you need a history lesson?

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Let us hope that the history lesson is given by someone who has a clue about PC history. IBM made a PC, but it most certainly was not the second PC, or even the third, or fourth, or .... at least not on this planet.



    Just what color is the sky on your planet?
  • Reply 58 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by Ed M.:

    <strong>The fact is that MacLuv is a troll... That much has already been revealed in his posts.



    He speaks of "fallacies", yet he himself is committing the biggest one of all...





    (Slothful induction) -- The conclusion of a strong inductive argument is continuously denied despite reasonable evidence to the contrary. And then there is his overwhelming aura of Self-righteousness -- He actually believes that his intentions are "good" while attempting to *enlighten* all of us.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Could you make specific references to my fallicies rather than posting ones yourself? The only point of this post is to flame me.



    If you don't agree with my posts then don't agree with them. They represent my opinion. As for you and others in here that must constantly refer to me as a "Troll" becuase you can't think of any better argument to put on the table, I think you could practice a little more respect for others' opinions.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 59 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mr. Me:

    <strong>



    Let us hope that the history lesson is given by someone who has a clue about PC history. IBM made a PC, but it most certainly was not the second PC, or even the third, or fourth, or .... at least not on this planet.



    Just what color is the sky on your planet?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Are we going to start arguing semantics here? For the sake of argument I made a simple timeline-- Apple, IBM, Microsoft. It was in response to one putting IBMs PC before Apple. I'm not going to "geek out" and list OS that ever hit a terminal in the history of computing. Obviously you couldn't be bothered to do so, either.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 60 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>



    If you don't agree with my posts then don't agree with them. They represent my opinion. As for you and others in here that must constantly refer to me as a "Troll" becuase you can't think of any better argument to put on the table, I think you could practice a little more respect for others' opinions.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I think you could as well. You made 2 or 3 Judge Judy comments. Also a couple of times didn't make any good points, just flamed the poster because "you can't think of any better argument to put on the table", or you said "I do not wish to pursue your argument any further"



    So you can't admit when you are wrong, you just say you dont want to argue anymore, or make fun of the original poster...



    What is the definition of a troll? Anyone, anyone?
Sign In or Register to comment.