CNet: Apple has Intel inside--sort of
It's not the product some have been hoping for, but there is already one Apple Computer machine that has "Intel Inside," according to CNet News.com. "For a long time, people have suggested that Apple make its Mac OS X operating system work with Intel chips. While the Mac maker has not done so, it has used Intel processors in one of its recent products--the Xserve RAID storage system... According to Intel marketing materials, the Xserve RAID uses Intel's IOP 331 chip, a derivative of the XScale processor. The IOP chip, which is used in many storage systems, is designed to speed the task of shuttling data in and out of a computer system." However, its noted that the use of an Intel chip does not appear to be part of a broader trend, and as recently as last month, Apple Chief Financial Officer Peter Oppenheimer reiterated that Apple has no plans to offer Mac OS X on anything other than the kinds of chips it currently uses.
Comments
Yeah, USB was basically bought out from... err... jeeez, 1997 is so long ago. Ah well, anyway Intel is behind it and I think gets a royalty for every chipset/port a computer ships with.
Like Apple and Firewire.
I dont know what the status is, but it used to be 25cents per Firewire chipset?port? that went to Apple.
Originally posted by ZO
Isnt PCI and USB technology from Intel as well?
Yeah, USB was basically bought out from... err... jeeez, 1997 is so long ago. Ah well, anyway Intel is behind it and I think gets a royalty for every chipset/port a computer ships with.
Like Apple and Firewire.
I dont know what the status is, but it used to be 25cents per Firewire chipset?port? that went to Apple.
I think it was Entrega who invented USB. They sold it to Intel and remained a manufacturer of USB hubs, etc.
Originally posted by ZO
Like Apple and Firewire.
I dont know what the status is, but it used to be 25cents per Firewire chipset?port? that went to Apple.
They go to The 1394 Trade Association - not Apple - but Apple is a member.
1997 wants it's headline back!
Originally posted by JimDreamworx
Attn: CNET.
1997 wants it's headline back!
Well, since Xserve RAIDs came out in 2003, I don't think 1997 could want it back.
Oh well, funny anyways.
I'm personally really hoping for OS X on x86, so I don't have to pay ridiculous hardware prices.
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm personally really hoping for OS X on x86, so I don't have to pay ridiculous hardware prices.
Not me. You get what you pay for. I know it sucks but my intel junk doesn't last more than a year before something fails. I have a 20 computers at work I am over and it is always something. Same for my wife's system at home.
I am glad Apple has great hardware.
Eric
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm personally really hoping for OS X on x86, so I don't have to pay ridiculous hardware prices.
Keep on hoping. I just hope you're not planning a whole 'hold your breath' thing, too, since I think you'll be dust before that's likely to happen. Hell, OS X's release schedule would double just trying to do the hardware compatibility stuff. And if you haven't noticed, they have a hard enough time keeping the OS and hardware working together now, and they control both of them!
Originally posted by aplnub
Not me. You get what you pay for. I know it sucks but my intel junk doesn't last more than a year before something fails. I have a 20 computers at work I am over and it is always something. Same for my wife's system at home.
I am glad Apple has great hardware.
Eric
Sure, but Apple's hardware is mighty slow right now for its price. There are many good x86 based computers out there, not mentioning the ones that you can easily build yourself.
Originally posted by Placebo
Sure, but Apple's hardware is mighty slow right now for its price. There are many good x86 based computers out there, not mentioning the ones that you can easily build yourself.
PC hardware has increased in speed, but the primary OS has remained the same, so it's going to run faster, just like OS 9 runs __way__ faster on today's Macs. However, OS X is so framework and API-heavy, and has such a demanding user interface, of course it's going to require more processing power.
Originally posted by Placebo
Well, since Xserve RAIDs came out in 2003, I don't think 1997 could want it back...
Whoops! I was trying to sensationalize on the fact that Apple has had Intel technology in their products since then (eg. USB) with a goofy grabbing line.
Hmmm. The more you get into the story, the sillier my line appears - kinda like CNET in a way... hey, I could be a pundit!
Originally posted by Placebo
Sure, but Apple's hardware is mighty slow right now for its price. There are many good x86 based computers out there, not mentioning the ones that you can easily build yourself.
Depends on your point of view. Comparing clock speeds there is no doubt Apple is behind. Even in the GPU they hurt some,
but,
My new 12" iBook (1.25 gig ram) runs cirlce's around my top of the line Dell M60 Pentium M 1.8 ghz w/1 gig ram (was top of the line when I bought it a few months back). Doing almost any task I can think of (Photo Shop, InDesign, Office, and plain checking my mail) is light speed ahead of my Dell on my iBook.
My iMac 1.8 ghz makes my 3 ghz work computer look like grass growing from a distance. Maybe it is because my Mac is dedicating less resources to virus scanners/and BS MS code, but I don't care. I just care about it running fast for daily operations.
Eric
Originally posted by Placebo
Sure, but Apple's hardware is mighty slow right now for its price. There are many good x86 based computers out there, not mentioning the ones that you can easily build yourself.
Everything to your likeing.
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm personally really hoping for OS X on x86, so I don't have to pay ridiculous hardware prices.
1: What the hell makes you think a X86 machine would be cheaper?
2: If you want OSX on intel, use PearPC.
Originally posted by Placebo
I'm personally really hoping for OS X on x86, so I don't have to pay ridiculous hardware prices.
On the desktop, I sortof agree, the lower end tower lineup sucks huge, there is no excuse, but, the Apple server line is solid, I dare you to try to go to HP and get a dual cpu server, with the 1-u formfactor, oh and if you do that, you also must remember a n OS, you either need Windows server with unlimited cliets, or (my personal pick) Novell license, that can double the cost of the server, plus, look at the raid unit: it is increadible compared to the PC equivelnt, imho.
Scientific, design, 2d, video, audio...
The performance of most macs belies the spec sheet. Measurebators will never be happy... Let them moan, we know what works, and what works well...
The performance problem that macs have these days has more to do with Apple's terrible habit of nickle and diming customers.
The consumer desktops are the shining example of this...
Mini: No keyboard or Mouse = STUPID, save your arguments, you're wrong. (though I realize this will not effect initial sales, it's still just plain dumb not to give people a $1 part, but rather force them to spend another 100 on the basic input devices...)
eMac: CRT, gawd awful, and poor standard RAM and HDD allotments.
iMac: Still not offered at 999 to consumers! Furthermore, for 1299, you get entirely inadequate RAM and HDD specs. These are real issues, not video cards, not the last Hz, not the typical measurbating... The amount of storage, and REAM make real differences to how well your mac works, and how convenient and pleasant the whole experience is/isn't. Apple lags well behind here. Not to mention the lack of superdrives at 1299. Really, it ought to be included at 999, we know what they cost, we're talking a $10, add media incompatibilities to the list of annoyances. DVD-R should be standard on ANY desktop 999 and over...
The most galling part of all this, is that it would literally cost Apple pennies to make these improvements to their desktops. Unlike the fastest chipsets/GPUs (which are always grossly inflated) these changes make a real difference to the quality of your computing experience, and cost next to nothing to do.
As far as hardware being used all over, AMD's flash memory can be found in lots of things. Apple using parts made by an x86 hardware maker is hardly tragic. A lot of that hardware is widely tested and works great.
Originally posted by Matsu
Mini: No keyboard or Mouse = STUPID, save your arguments, you're wrong. (though I realize this will not effect initial sales, it's still just plain dumb not to give people a $1 part, but rather force them to spend another 100 on the basic input devices...)
In fairness to apple, a KB/M setup that costs $100 will be far and away better than any OEM stock KB+M, personaly, I think you would be crazy to spend more than ~40 on a KB/M, A standard USB 107 key keyboard is like $7-$11 on newegg - and a mouse, assuming you want optical 2-button and scroll wheel, that is ~$20 at the most.
(this is not an out for apple, I think not includeing the kb and mouse was stupid for the most part, but hell, I already have enough KBs and mice that if I could have, I would have said "keep it and cut the price for me" but they did, so, in a selfish way, I am happy)
Originally posted by Placebo
'm personally really hoping for OS X on x86, so I don't have to pay ridiculous hardware prices.
Released in 1994. It's called nextstep. Unfortunately it's OS version 10.1.