CONFIRMED: Apple will NOT use AMD in the near future

1246

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who starts insulting intelligence. I only start getting sarcastic with people when they make blatant attempts to undermine my arguments by constanstly bashing my intelligence--futhermore I only do it when people start "thread stalking" (harrasing) me. I don't mind a little sarcasm, but I know a "troll" hunt when i see one.



    There's also a difference between using sarcasm and emoticons to convey personality and using sophomoric comments to insult someone directly.



    If you feel reverting to insults is a way of winning arguments then go ahead. You're not going to change my opinion.



    As far the "it's okay to call people Trolls because everyone does it on the internet" comment-- whatever.
  • Reply 62 of 103
    To get this somewhat back on topic...



    Does anyone still believe that Apple will be using AMD within the next year? I think, if it ever was going to happen, it would have needed to be at MWSF 03, before the 970 came out. Once we get the 970, there will be no need for AMD or x86 (if you believed Apple would be goign that way). Why would Apple jump to one processor, and then jump to another architecture any time soon? They would need to wait at least 2 more years from the release of the 970, and by that time the 970 (or some derivation) may be running faster than AMD, or AMD may no longer exists in the desktop processor market!



    Personally, I don't think it was ever going to happen. I would think Apple would go Intel before AMD (AMD can't even keep up with Intel in terms of MHz, and that is why everyone wants to jump to x86, right?)



    And now to throw it off topic again:



    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:

    <strong>Leave the sarcasm and the annoying smileys out and perhaps we'll listen to what you have to say.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    For the official MacLuv record:



    Number of smilies he has in this thread: 38

    Number of posts he has in this thread: 28

    Number of posts he has with no smilies: 5

    Average number of smilies per post: 1.36

    Percentage of posts with at least 1 smilie: 82.1%



    27.2% of his total posts have been in this thread alone!



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: kupan787 ]</p>
  • Reply 62 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:

    <strong>Please, understand, sarcasm is argument for the weak. It allows you to refute an argument as idiocy without having to explain why. Leave the sarcasm and the annoying smileys out and perhaps we'll listen to what you have to say.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, I don't use sarcasm to agrue my point. However, a lot of people in here do. I use sarcasm to convey the fact that one is wasting my time with bullsh*t for the sake of argument, such as most of this thread.



    Is that a good explaination for you?



    To sum up, there is no confirmation that Apple will not use AMD.





    <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
  • Reply 64 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>To sum up, there is no confirmation that Apple will not use AMD.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    In your opnion. I feel (as I just posted above) the time has come and past.



    But as far as confirmation, I think we have a quote from the CEO of AMD telling us there is no deal with Apple at this time (paraprasing).
  • Reply 64 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by kupan787:

    <strong>

    For the official MacLuv record:



    Number of smilies he has in this thread: 37

    Number of posts he has in this thread: 27

    Number of posts he has with no smilies: 5

    Average number of smilies per post: 1.37

    Percentage of posts with at least 1 smilie: 81.4%



    26.5% of his total posts have been in this thread alone!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wow! I use smilies for emphasis! What a concept! :eek:



    What's your point, and what does this have to do with the topic?



    Now you guys are just plain harrasing me. Where can I start my own AI gang?



    <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 66 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by kupan787:

    <strong>



    In your opnion.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No Kapan, it's fact. There is no confirmation. Sorry. You lose the debate. Case closed.



    (edit)--btw, this is referring to the thread title: CONFIRMED: Apple will NOT use AMD.



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</p>
  • Reply 67 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.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I believe the term you are looking for is plausable deniability. Ruiz can say he has no knownledge of Apple looking into AMD products, but that doesn't mean Apple isn't looking into AMD products. Still, if Ruiz gets caught later with his pants down (er, that he did in fact know Apple was looking into using AMD products but denied this in public) then there's trouble under the law....



    Also, several of the Macs and LaserWriters I own have AMD chips in them. My 5300 motherboard, for instance, has an AMD microcontroller on board and my LaserWriter Select 310 has an AMD 29205 RISC. Old products, yes, but just an example of how Apple can still be looking to use AMD products (not CF) and not an x86 CPU.



    Please do not confuse this post as taking any position. Really. I like black AND white!
  • Reply 68 of 103
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:

    <strong>



    No. He would say nothing on the subject. He did in fact say something, and he is accountable to what he says.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    No. It was sarcasim. He would say what I said because I was replying and being sarcastic.
  • Reply 69 of 103
    kidredkidred Posts: 2,402member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>



    No Kapan, it's fact. There is no confirmation. Sorry. You lose the debate. Case closed.



    (edit)--btw, this is referring to the thread title: CONFIRMED: Apple will NOT use AMD.



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: MacLuv ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Actually, it's not fact. There's no proof one way or the other to the general public. Until AMD or Stevie announce something jointly, it's specualtion. The title is faulty along with your claims of fact to the contrary. So the case is wide open until then.



    edit- Unless your fact was that 'there is no confirmation', in which case you'd be correct



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]</p>
  • Reply 70 of 103
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,409member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>The PC processor market has one industry standard. This standard is not Intel, as the name "Wintel" may suggest, but the x86 processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well technically the x86 ISA (as opposed to "the x86 processor") is the de facto standard, although there are enough variations to cause a fair bit of chaos (MMX, SSE, SSE2, 3DNow!).



    [quote]<strong>However, Apple's plan has backfired. The only way to rectify the situation is to adopt the industry standard--in this case, the x86 platform.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Apple's plan was working fine up until just about 2 years ago when it started to stumble. There are multiple solutions to their current performance problems, the 970 being the most likely one since it has been announced. It is certainly not the case that adopting x86 ISA is the only way out of their current situation. It is even debatable that their current situation has nothing to do with a performance deficit, but instead everything to do with the general softness in the PC industry. Do people really need faster PCs? For a great many of them the answer is no. Switching to x86 now would cause a massive disruption that would almost certainly destroy Apple completely. Switching at some point down the line might be possible. Adding an additional line of x86 machines might let them into some other markets.



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Programmer ]</p>
  • Reply 71 of 103
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>I have been reinvestigating Apple's licensing scenerio as Apple seems to be in the same spot they were in 1996-97. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    ????!!!!

    They are in a perception slump, but they aren't where they were in 96. There's so many fronts that are decidedly better, it is staggering.



    In 96, there was something like 16 different CPU _motherboards_. Today, the four (or five) lines use essentially the same motherboard. Design overhead is drastically lower.



    In 96, Copeland/Gershwin were 'the future of MacOS'... yet it was clear there were dire problems getting some of the aspects to coexist peacefully. (There was a MacWorld where one build showed one important feature working, and another build showed another important feature working... and it took until 2001 for those to both be released into MacOS9) Today, for all the whining, every single complaint about MacOSX is cosmetic. The way the OS is set up now, major reworking of, say, the Dock can happen without completely rewriting/revalidating/retestmarketing everything under the sun. The Dock folk can make their changes with a reasonable expectation that it won't turn text-to-speech into something resembling Klingon.



    In 96 Apple's manufacturing techniques were 'Build a boatload of every model, hope they all sell precisely the number we expect' with construction-to-sale lags of seasons. Leading to nearly a billion dollar loss in one quarter! Now they build-to-order some machines, and it happens in a pretty reasonable pace (assuming you aren't going for the max speed chips, which are always in demand.)



    In 96, if MS had said 'Office for the Mac is DEAD.' Apple would have shriveled up PDQ. Or faster. Apple released MS from the consequences of allegedly stealing a variety of IP (mostly from Quicktime), vowed a love for IE, and otherwise basically kowtowed to MS for a committment to MSOffice-for-mac (knowing that they were going to change OS before that & MS would have to come along for the ride too . Now, Office is still important - but there do exist translators that actually work. The formats are available. AppleWorks has come a long way... and Apple has moved into niches that never were dominated by Office anyway.



    A thousand other things to add: NuBus to PCI/AGP, MrC to GCC, die legacy ports die, 3 developers make a reasonable webbrowser due to ease of Cocoa, etc.



    Not in the same place.

    Not selling like gangbusters - but not taking the recession in the shorts like everyone else but Dell either.
  • Reply 72 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>



    Actually, it's not fact. There's no proof one way or the other to the general public.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ruiz said that he didn't know if Apple was even considering their processors. As stated 100 times in this thread, he can not lie about this. Therefore, as of today, there is no agreement, deal or discussions between Apple and AMD because Ruiz said he did not know of any.



    However, Apple themselves could be interested and just have not talked to Ruiz yet.



    Basically Ruiz should have only said that last comment about not being able to say either way because instead he just confirmed that Apple hasn't talked to them about using their processors.



    So yeah, the title of this thread is inaccurate because it could still happen one day, but nobody's going to care a year from now. We'll forget about this AMD thing when we've got 970s in our boxen.



    GO IBM
  • Reply 73 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by Willoughby:

    <strong>



    So yeah, the title of this thread is inaccurate because it could still happen one day, but nobody's going to care a year from now. We'll forget about this AMD thing when we've got 970s in our boxen.



    GO IBM </strong><hr></blockquote>



    If someone can tell me how to change the title, I will change it (I can't find any way to though...)
  • Reply 74 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by kupan787:

    <strong>



    If someone can tell me how to change the title, I will change it (I can't find any way to though...)</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Edit your original post and you should see the option there.
  • Reply 75 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    Programmer--



    There's something I want to point out so I snipped this part of your post:



    [quote]Originally posted by Programmer:

    <strong>Do people really need faster PCs? For a great many of them the answer is no.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is definately refutable. It depends on who you're talking to. And from a marketing perspective, speed is very important.



    Idealism: If everybody just realized that we don't really need this performance increase then everybody would be happy.



    Reality: If Apple doesn't offer faster performance from it's machines, Apple will lose sales to those who want faster performance.



    Who wants faster performance: Anyone who wants faster performance.



    Why is this important: Duh.
  • Reply 76 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by KidRed:

    <strong>



    Actually, it's not fact. There's no proof one way or the other to the general public. Until AMD or Stevie announce something jointly, it's specualtion. The title is faulty along with your claims of fact to the contrary. So the case is wide open until then.



    edit- Unless your fact was that 'there is no confirmation', in which case you'd be correct



    [ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: KidRed ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Uh, yeah. Since you like bashing me for no reason just do me a favor and read my posts before slamming what I say, as I did clearly state I was talking about CONFIRMED.



    And the title is still wrong, becuase there's no confirmation of anything.



    How about: AMD unsure of Apple's intentions.



    Whatever.



    <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 77 of 103
    [quote]CONFIRMED: Apple will NOT use AMD in the near future<hr></blockquote>

    Well no sh!t.
  • Reply 78 of 103
    The 970 is faster hardware not to mention more scalable hardware.



    BTW the idea of recreating what formed the PC industry in the first place is impossible. In order for Apple to form business partnerships with other PC makers means stealing clients from Microsoft not creating new Gateways and Dells. When the PC started those companies didn't exsist. Anybody that thinks Apple should engage in that battle should seriously stop smoking crack.
  • Reply 79 of 103
    macluvmacluv Posts: 261member
    [quote]Originally posted by nebcon65:

    <strong>Anybody that thinks Apple should engage in that battle should seriously stop smoking crack. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    I'd rather be smoking crack than still drinking the kewlaid you guys are mixin' up.



    <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 80 of 103
    [quote]Originally posted by MacLuv:

    <strong>Programmer--



    There's something I want to point out so I snipped this part of your post:



    This is definately refutable. It depends on who you're talking to. And from a marketing perspective, speed is very important.



    Idealism: If everybody just realized that we don't really need this performance increase then everybody would be happy.



    Reality: If Apple doesn't offer faster performance from it's machines, Apple will lose sales to those who want faster performance.



    Who wants faster performance: Anyone who wants faster performance.



    Why is this important: Duh.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I agree that marketing is the driving force here, just as it is in most markets (that's why its called "market"-ing after all). The consumer is being fed something they don't need. If Apple's marketing can emphasize elements other than speed (and it does) then they can sell slower machines. People don't really want fast computers, they want computers that they can use to do something with.



    The speed of computers is an extremely complex thing. Speed != MHz, but marketing sells it that way because marketing likes to latch on to really simple things because they are easy for the customer to understand. Most of the consumers in the market are currently under the mistaken impression that the most important thing they should consider in buying a computer is how many MHz it has. Most don't even know what that number is. Many of those that do know what MHz is are mistaken about the what that number means in a practical sense.



    I should have said more in my previous post about the need for performance. Rather than saying that most consumers don't need more performance I should have said that the current series of incremental speed increases are largely irrelevant to the average consumer. They aren't going to notice an increase from 1 to 3 GHz in their P4 -- it simply isn't a big change in what the machine can actually do, and that is what is actually important to the average Joe. More memory, a network bandwidth improvement, more features, better software, ease of use, price, etc are all things the average consumer should actually care about.



    What is far more important is an increase in capabilities. Machines which can do something that their predecessors simply cannot. This sort of new capability is sometimes enabled by a performance jump (and a new piece of software), or sometimes by a new piece of hardware (and software to go with it). Apple does this very well (look at the iApps) and is good at integrating it and using it to sell the overall package.



    Some people belittle their current marketing campaign, but it seems to be more effective than their previous attempts and it gets attention. Their AppleStores are getting them exposure as well. This takes the attention away from what is really a single stupid number that is the bane of all computer marketing departments (not just Apple's) in all companies: MHz.
Sign In or Register to comment.