Mr Otellini's quote relates to future microprocessors and chipsets they plan to release. Intel can't really sell on processor speed upgrades alone anymore so they are moving to a more wholesale approach, similar to Centrino. Part of that will include greater security. That was all he foreshadowed.
WiFi SUCKS FOR THE HOME THE RADIATION LEVEL IS TOO HIGH, ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN, there is too much interference, and the power usage is too high.
Radiation level ? especially for children ? what are you smoking? please show me some proof that wifi produces harmfull radiation, untill then, keep pulling stuff out of your ass.
as for the rest of your comments. its possible that WIMAX could be used in a residential home networking scenario , but if it does it will be way down the road. the big advantages of wimax is its beaming distance, its smaller fernel zone etc.
802.11g and the g+ rated stuff is 54 and 108 mbps rated , which is plenty fast for home networking , you have to understand how small of fraction your broadband connection would be to saturating a 54/108mbps wifi connection.
Mr Otellini's quote relates to future microprocessors and chipsets they plan to release. Intel can't really sell on processor speed upgrades alone anymore so they are moving to a more wholesale approach, similar to Centrino. Part of that will include greater security. That was all he foreshadowed.
I don't want to get too caught up in what this little quote means for Intel-Apple, but can you provide some evidence of your interpretation? The WSJ article absolutely does not give that impression. Not that I'd be surprised if the WSJ distorted something, but I'd be interested in where your interpretation comes from.
-Macs will be forced to sport gaudy "Intel Inside" stickers on their beautiful mugs. We can be sure that Steve will negotiate an agreement that lets Apple keep their hardware looking cool. In fact I bet Apple would rather pay a premium for the Intel chips than put that butt-ugly sticker on the box.
.
The lack of stickers on Apple's products is one of the things that attracks me to their products. I know it is silly, but I truely hate electronics with stickers all over them.
Radiation level ? especially for children ? what are you smoking? please show me some proof that wifi produces harmfull radiation, untill then, keep pulling stuff out of your ass.
as for the rest of your comments. its possible that WIMAX could be used in a residential home networking scenario , but if it does it will be way down the road. the big advantages of wimax is its beaming distance, its smaller fernel zone etc.
802.11g and the g+ rated stuff is 54 and 108 mbps rated , which is plenty fast for home networking , you have to understand how small of fraction your broadband connection would be to saturating a 54/108mbps wifi connection.
sorry to have helped get this thread offtopic.
Oh and your expectations of what's fast enough are also incorrect.
You can't do TV with 108 Mbs and certainly not HD TV.
Just because you don't know, means YOU need to look it up not me.
I found the specs on UltraWideBand a long time ago, its in the public domain which makes in common knowledge, WiFi uses too much power, there are way too many interference problems, and give off too much radiation.
OH YES WE DEFINITELY NEED TO REPLACE WiFi IT SUCK SO BAD.
WE MUST REPLACE IN NOW ITS AWFULL.
Have you even seen a post from someone with interference problems ITS THE PLAUGE REPLACE WiFi NOW.
Radiation level ? especially for children ? what are you smoking? please show me some proof that wifi produces harmfull radiation, untill then, keep pulling stuff out of your ass.
as for the rest of your comments. its possible that WIMAX could be used in a residential home networking scenario , but if it does it will be way down the road. the big advantages of wimax is its beaming distance, its smaller fernel zone etc.
802.11g and the g+ rated stuff is 54 and 108 mbps rated , which is plenty fast for home networking , you have to understand how small of fraction your broadband connection would be to saturating a 54/108mbps wifi connection.
sorry to have helped get this thread offtopic.
Oh The Humanity, how can this be off topic Apple has been talking to Intel about buying chips and Intel is selling chips for WiMax ???
UltraWideBand runs at Gigabits per second with 10th the radiation of WiFi and equally low power usage, thus if you have 10 to 100 wireless connections in your home you won't get cooked like you would with WiFi -- ITs ALL MICROWAVES !!!
I also believe that I have read that the band width with WiMax dropped to get the distance but it is designed so that it can be multiplexed to achieve whatever band width is needed.
WiMax was defined specifically to deliver HD TV to the last mile.
By the way WiMax is slated to be a LAST MILE technology.
But there are other Wi's that are being defined to use in the home based on UltraWideBand if WiMax is not used there.
IN OTHER WORDS WiFi WILL BE REPLACED SOON, its already done.
The lack of stickers on Apple's products is one of the things that attracks me to their products. I know it is silly, but I truely hate electronics with stickers all over them.
Apple has class, its a shame they dont have Os'x for Pcs Just as its a shame Apple doesnt use the fastest hardware. AMD thank you, Moto well i wont go there and IBM has disappointed. I was really disappointed when my new Dual G5 didnt ship for months and then canceled and bought a AMD based machine. It is missing OSX but it has everything else. Apple should sell OSX for PC's and it should make Intel/AMD based Macs along with PPC Macs, why not? 3% marketshare is 3% marketshare. iPod has shown them a thing or two about marketshare that they forgot years ago. Perhaps Apple has awakend from its little cocoon. There isnt any reason for Apple to ignore 97% of the world, remember typewritters,remember Vhs enough said..................by the way whoever decided to label my keyboards alphabets must have been higher then SpaceshipOne!8)
1) Am I right in thinking that all the PPC ships MHz aside are much faster and allow you to multitask better, then normal Wintel CPU's?
Well, not necessarily. There are multiple classes of PPC chips, some of which are lower-powered, lower-performance chips designed for set-top boxes, consoles, etc. Not all PPCs are created equal.
But if we're talking desktop chips, a PPC is, in theory, more efficient. However Intel chips can also, in theory, beat that efficiency with raw GHz power to keep up, which has been their strategy. At the end of the day the pros and cons for both platforms have been neutralizing each other. It's been a close race since the G5.
In a nutshell, to answer your question, it's not a *given* that PPCs are faster. It depends on what the PPC is designed for and how fast it does go.
Quote:
3) Did we or did we not see a full range of PPC derivatives in the next gen consoles, witch to my mind would make them quite affordable, now so and if so what cost would this mean to apple?
Well, not much. As mentioned in the first answer, there are different classes of PPCs. The PPCs in the game consoles aren't in the same class of performance as the desktop chips. They're substantially simplified/weaker. Hence much cheaper to manufacture, etc. That's why those systems will only be a few hundred bucks.
I don't believe any of this OS X on Intel shit. Sorry, I don't. I think it's all one big smokescreen, perfectly setup for Apple to surprise us all with something completely unexpected on Monday. Then again, WTF do I know?
"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule."
That's ridiculous. For a leak test you wouldn't use something so vague that spreads like wildfire. You'd do something relatively minor, but specific. Like the old Asteroid, for example...
You can't do TV with 108 Mbs and certainly not HD TV.
Yes you can - broadcast HDTV (which includes multiple resolutions) is 19 mbps per channel. H.264 (or whatever the newest thing is) is supposed to reduce that quite a bit.
"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule." . . .
Let's assume this is true for sake of argument. Nothing here says anything about these chips being X86 processors. A staggered time frame like this suggests Apple is bringing on a new vendor, not making a complete changeover to a new CPU architecture.
Think about it. If we were running Apple and wanted to switch to the X86, would we drag out the transition over the next two years? Who is going to buy a new Mac from Apple under these conditions? Not me. I'll get by with what I have until the new models arrive, and that will be two years for the Power Mac. If I absolute need another Mac, I'll buy the cheapest thing I can on eBay.
Then there's software. Who will invest in Mac PPC applications in such a transition? Not many, unless vendors are willing to provide a free upgrade to an X86 version when it is available. I don't see a switch to the X86 happening as described.
i think it would be interesting for Apple to have options like intel AND IBM. Maybe he rumors of the low end receiving Intel chips could involve the Transitive Quicktransit emulation tech, as the Intel chips with the emu software would be way more powerful than the old beater G4's apple can get now,, with nice low power and heat, no software would need any recompile, no programers freaking out, nothing changes, other than Apple can choose. IBM MP chips in high end G5's, great, no emu necessary, in 2 years if Intel have a smokeing chip that works in Apples high end, bring it on! Maybe they will even build it more PPC native, or maybe IBM will bring out the Power5 dual core, it could be all about choice!
The cnet article is a very good example of irresponsibly journalism. The very idea that apple would switch over to intel when the PPC is doing so well is preposterous. Not only is it debatable that intel is any better off than IBM as of now, but also it is debatable as to whether apple could survive in an open market. As of now OS X and the Mac platform are protected by their incompatibility with the x86 world. If OS X was ported over to run on x86 there is no way apple could keep developers producing OS X specific applications--not to mention trying to get developers to port applications over to x86. The transition in affect would destroy apple's hardware business. I suppose it is possible that OS X could flourish on x86 hardware; however, in reality apple is far too deeply ingrained in their hardware image. Also, one main reason why OS X is so great is because the company that makes it also makes all the hardware it runs on. For these reasons, apple would never move to x86 unless they were in dire trouble, which they are not.
Perhaps apple has commissioned intel the make a new mobile chip for them in light of Motorola's failures and IBMs huge amounts of business from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. This chip, however, will most certainly be a PPC chip. Intel probably wants a piece of the powerPC industry as well. Look at all the money IBM gets from the game consoles etc. Works out for everyone.
I repeat: Apple will not be using x86 chips and if they are I would be prepared to drop all your stock in the company as its over for apple.
Algol, think outside the box with this. If the PPC platform is really doing so well, then why is Apple still stuck using single processor desktop-only chips that are now almost one year and 300 MHz behind what Apple told us a couple of years ago?
More to the point, the issue really isn't so much of what IBM is supplying today but what they've told Apple they'll have for them three to five years from now. If Apple didn't like the prognosis, maybe they decided to bite the bullet and hitch their wagon to an outfit who's prime business is designing and building PC processors. It's easy for us to say that moving to some kind of Intel architecture is "risky" but then again getting processors from the same company as your competition can also be considered "low risk" in the long term. Apple made the CISC-->RISC transition almost seamless. Could they make another processor transition seamless? I dunno but if anyone can it's Apple.
Apple made the CISC-->RISC transition almost seamless. Could they make another processor transition seamless? I dunno but if anyone can it's Apple. [/B]
Comments
Originally posted by BRussell
Another nugget to throw into the mix:
Mr Otellini's quote relates to future microprocessors and chipsets they plan to release. Intel can't really sell on processor speed upgrades alone anymore so they are moving to a more wholesale approach, similar to Centrino. Part of that will include greater security. That was all he foreshadowed.
WiFi SUCKS FOR THE HOME THE RADIATION LEVEL IS TOO HIGH, ESPECIALLY FOR CHILDREN, there is too much interference, and the power usage is too high.
Radiation level ? especially for children ? what are you smoking? please show me some proof that wifi produces harmfull radiation, untill then, keep pulling stuff out of your ass.
as for the rest of your comments. its possible that WIMAX could be used in a residential home networking scenario , but if it does it will be way down the road. the big advantages of wimax is its beaming distance, its smaller fernel zone etc.
802.11g and the g+ rated stuff is 54 and 108 mbps rated , which is plenty fast for home networking , you have to understand how small of fraction your broadband connection would be to saturating a 54/108mbps wifi connection.
sorry to have helped get this thread offtopic.
Originally posted by Telomar
Mr Otellini's quote relates to future microprocessors and chipsets they plan to release. Intel can't really sell on processor speed upgrades alone anymore so they are moving to a more wholesale approach, similar to Centrino. Part of that will include greater security. That was all he foreshadowed.
I don't want to get too caught up in what this little quote means for Intel-Apple, but can you provide some evidence of your interpretation? The WSJ article absolutely does not give that impression. Not that I'd be surprised if the WSJ distorted something, but I'd be interested in where your interpretation comes from.
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
-Macs will be forced to sport gaudy "Intel Inside" stickers on their beautiful mugs. We can be sure that Steve will negotiate an agreement that lets Apple keep their hardware looking cool. In fact I bet Apple would rather pay a premium for the Intel chips than put that butt-ugly sticker on the box.
.
The lack of stickers on Apple's products is one of the things that attracks me to their products. I know it is silly, but I truely hate electronics with stickers all over them.
Originally posted by oh_the_humanity
[/i]
Radiation level ? especially for children ? what are you smoking? please show me some proof that wifi produces harmfull radiation, untill then, keep pulling stuff out of your ass.
as for the rest of your comments. its possible that WIMAX could be used in a residential home networking scenario , but if it does it will be way down the road. the big advantages of wimax is its beaming distance, its smaller fernel zone etc.
802.11g and the g+ rated stuff is 54 and 108 mbps rated , which is plenty fast for home networking , you have to understand how small of fraction your broadband connection would be to saturating a 54/108mbps wifi connection.
sorry to have helped get this thread offtopic.
Oh and your expectations of what's fast enough are also incorrect.
You can't do TV with 108 Mbs and certainly not HD TV.
Just because you don't know, means YOU need to look it up not me.
I found the specs on UltraWideBand a long time ago, its in the public domain which makes in common knowledge, WiFi uses too much power, there are way too many interference problems, and give off too much radiation.
OH YES WE DEFINITELY NEED TO REPLACE WiFi IT SUCK SO BAD.
WE MUST REPLACE IN NOW ITS AWFULL.
Have you even seen a post from someone with interference problems ITS THE PLAUGE REPLACE WiFi NOW.
Originally posted by oh_the_humanity
[/i]
Radiation level ? especially for children ? what are you smoking? please show me some proof that wifi produces harmfull radiation, untill then, keep pulling stuff out of your ass.
as for the rest of your comments. its possible that WIMAX could be used in a residential home networking scenario , but if it does it will be way down the road. the big advantages of wimax is its beaming distance, its smaller fernel zone etc.
802.11g and the g+ rated stuff is 54 and 108 mbps rated , which is plenty fast for home networking , you have to understand how small of fraction your broadband connection would be to saturating a 54/108mbps wifi connection.
sorry to have helped get this thread offtopic.
Oh The Humanity, how can this be off topic Apple has been talking to Intel about buying chips and Intel is selling chips for WiMax ???
UltraWideBand runs at Gigabits per second with 10th the radiation of WiFi and equally low power usage, thus if you have 10 to 100 wireless connections in your home you won't get cooked like you would with WiFi -- ITs ALL MICROWAVES !!!
I also believe that I have read that the band width with WiMax dropped to get the distance but it is designed so that it can be multiplexed to achieve whatever band width is needed.
WiMax was defined specifically to deliver HD TV to the last mile.
By the way WiMax is slated to be a LAST MILE technology.
But there are other Wi's that are being defined to use in the home based on UltraWideBand if WiMax is not used there.
IN OTHER WORDS WiFi WILL BE REPLACED SOON, its already done.
They are NOT listening to YOU !?!?!!?
Originally posted by Carson O'Genic
The lack of stickers on Apple's products is one of the things that attracks me to their products. I know it is silly, but I truely hate electronics with stickers all over them.
Apple has class, its a shame they dont have Os'x for Pcs Just as its a shame Apple doesnt use the fastest hardware. AMD thank you, Moto well i wont go there and IBM has disappointed. I was really disappointed when my new Dual G5 didnt ship for months and then canceled and bought a AMD based machine. It is missing OSX but it has everything else. Apple should sell OSX for PC's and it should make Intel/AMD based Macs along with PPC Macs, why not? 3% marketshare is 3% marketshare. iPod has shown them a thing or two about marketshare that they forgot years ago. Perhaps Apple has awakend from its little cocoon. There isnt any reason for Apple to ignore 97% of the world, remember typewritters,remember Vhs enough said..................by the way whoever decided to label my keyboards alphabets must have been higher then SpaceshipOne!8)
Originally posted by Black_Dragon
1) Am I right in thinking that all the PPC ships MHz aside are much faster and allow you to multitask better, then normal Wintel CPU's?
Well, not necessarily. There are multiple classes of PPC chips, some of which are lower-powered, lower-performance chips designed for set-top boxes, consoles, etc. Not all PPCs are created equal.
But if we're talking desktop chips, a PPC is, in theory, more efficient. However Intel chips can also, in theory, beat that efficiency with raw GHz power to keep up, which has been their strategy. At the end of the day the pros and cons for both platforms have been neutralizing each other. It's been a close race since the G5.
In a nutshell, to answer your question, it's not a *given* that PPCs are faster. It depends on what the PPC is designed for and how fast it does go.
3) Did we or did we not see a full range of PPC derivatives in the next gen consoles, witch to my mind would make them quite affordable, now so and if so what cost would this mean to apple?
Well, not much. As mentioned in the first answer, there are different classes of PPCs. The PPCs in the game consoles aren't in the same class of performance as the desktop chips. They're substantially simplified/weaker. Hence much cheaper to manufacture, etc. That's why those systems will only be a few hundred bucks.
Source: The Wall Street Journal - http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,
SB111791696757050994,00.html?mod=rss_whats_news_te chnology (paid subscription required)
You can't do TV with 108 Mbs and certainly not HD TV.
Yes you can - broadcast HDTV (which includes multiple resolutions) is 19 mbps per channel. H.264 (or whatever the newest thing is) is supposed to reduce that quite a bit.
Originally posted by wilco
"CNET on Friday reported that Apple would announce the transition plan June 6. It reported that Apple would move lower-end computers such as the Mac Mini to Intel chips in mid-2006 and higher-end models such as the Power Mac in mid-2007. An industry executive familiar with the matter, contacted Saturday, verified that schedule." . . .
Let's assume this is true for sake of argument. Nothing here says anything about these chips being X86 processors. A staggered time frame like this suggests Apple is bringing on a new vendor, not making a complete changeover to a new CPU architecture.
Think about it. If we were running Apple and wanted to switch to the X86, would we drag out the transition over the next two years? Who is going to buy a new Mac from Apple under these conditions? Not me. I'll get by with what I have until the new models arrive, and that will be two years for the Power Mac. If I absolute need another Mac, I'll buy the cheapest thing I can on eBay.
Then there's software. Who will invest in Mac PPC applications in such a transition? Not many, unless vendors are willing to provide a free upgrade to an X86 version when it is available. I don't see a switch to the X86 happening as described.
Perhaps apple has commissioned intel the make a new mobile chip for them in light of Motorola's failures and IBMs huge amounts of business from Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo. This chip, however, will most certainly be a PPC chip. Intel probably wants a piece of the powerPC industry as well. Look at all the money IBM gets from the game consoles etc. Works out for everyone.
I repeat: Apple will not be using x86 chips and if they are I would be prepared to drop all your stock in the company as its over for apple.
More to the point, the issue really isn't so much of what IBM is supplying today but what they've told Apple they'll have for them three to five years from now. If Apple didn't like the prognosis, maybe they decided to bite the bullet and hitch their wagon to an outfit who's prime business is designing and building PC processors. It's easy for us to say that moving to some kind of Intel architecture is "risky" but then again getting processors from the same company as your competition can also be considered "low risk" in the long term. Apple made the CISC-->RISC transition almost seamless. Could they make another processor transition seamless? I dunno but if anyone can it's Apple.
Apple made the CISC-->RISC transition almost seamless. Could they make another processor transition seamless? I dunno but if anyone can it's Apple. [/B]
When did apple use CISC CPU's ?