For those loyal Apple fans who feel betrayed
For those loyal mac fans who feel betrayed that Apple is switching to intel, consider this:
Quote from New York times
"In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business."
Quote from New York times
"In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business."
Comments
Originally posted by icfireball
For those loyal mac fans who feel betrayed that Apple is switching to intel, consider this:
Quote from New York times
"In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business."
Sounds like face-saving spin to me.
So...IBM *needed* Apple's additional investment aka "help" to pursue the faster and lower-power chips...IBM can't afford the expense?
Apple still is the winner and it's still embarrassing to IBM.
Originally posted by icfireball
For those loyal mac fans who feel betrayed that Apple is switching to intel, consider this:
Quote from New York times
"In the end, Mr. Jobs was given no choice but to move his business to Intel, when I.B.M. executives said that without additional Apple investment they were unwilling to pursue the faster and lower-power chips he badly needs for his laptop business."
The article has a Page 2, which begins with Steve Jobs's denial of the quote. And quite frankly, there are other incorrect statements in the article. Some statements make no sense, at all. You can judge for yourself by following this New York Times link.
This might be why an Intel CPU could effectively be cheaper to Apple than an otherwise less-expensive per-unit IBM CPU: Intel might have been willing to develop either an off-the-shelf or slightly customized product for Apple with no up-front development funding.
As they say, "Pay me now, or pay me later."
Originally posted by johnq
Sounds like face-saving spin to me.
So...IBM *needed* Apple's additional investment aka "help" to pursue the faster and lower-power chips...IBM can't afford the expense?
Apple still is the winner and it's still embarrassing to IBM.
i don't think he meant ibm needed it in order to get the job done. i think it was more along the lines of: ibm saw that they have a gigantic customer for their current chips in all 3 console manufacturers and the price/benefit ratio of further research on the g5 simply wasn't in their favor. consoles have a certain spec and once it's reached they basically stay the same for the life of the machine. i don't think the xbox has gotten any faster over its lifespan. so ibm only needs to get a processor to that speed, or more likely just give them one of them since consoles don't use the fastest processors around, and then sit back and enjoy the profits.
the g5 for apple was always going to be a bit of a problem because ibm has no reason to make that chip any faster at great expense except for apple, which is a very small scale customer in the scheme of microprocessors. your car probably has more freescale chips in it than half of an apple store. ibm just made a business decision. intel is in the business of making chips. that's it. so the change make some sense even though i am having a bit of trepidation about it.
That link takes u straight to the page with the spec sheet. While i agree that a console DOES NOT CHANGE EVER - it gets a whole lot of people pissed with a whole lot of people, and just like Thursdays, is on the whole bad idea, I also believe that the Pentium M was the main clincher of the deal, being intels most effiecient, powerful mobile chip.
BTW, I know that specs dont change, I have an Xbox brought about 3 months ago, and it has exactly the same guts as my freinds who brought his whent hey were first released.
Originally posted by pyriX
I dont believe the specs for the PS3 have been released yet, but the Xbox 360 has a triple cored PowerPC running at 3.2ghz each core - each with two hardware threads. For full specs/review go to this link here - http://www.tomshardware.com/game/200...ox_360-04.html
That link takes u straight to the page with the spec sheet. While i agree that a console DOES NOT CHANGE EVER - it gets a whole lot of people pissed with a whole lot of people, and just like Thursdays, is on the whole bad idea, I also believe that the Pentium M was the main clincher of the deal, being intels most effiecient, powerful mobile chip.
Aside from the fact that each core is a highly specialized PPC derivative (i.e. crippled for general computing tasks with, for example, only a single integer unit each), check out this gem from that article:
Since a CPU of that power will generate a lot of heat, Microsoft also chose a vacuum sealed water cooled heatsink to manage heat.
Yeah, THAT sounds like something that'd be easy to stuff into an iMac, let alone a laptop. The console chips were really just not an option. Steve would have been insane to bet the company on any of them.
But the as for you point on cooling, sure its a vacuam water cooling thingo, which knowing the whole story of the powers supply issue from the last box will probably have a dodgy korean made connection and break spilling vacuam and water all over your nice shiny (now) anchor, but surely if they packed it into something (I believe) would just fit into a shoe box, I dont see why they couldn't put one in an iMac