There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
When it comes to components used to build the machines of war, you're still being naive. The military uses the same components as the consumer industry, albeit often higher grade versions (which are also used by the aerospace and other industries). Consider, for examples, tire companies, engine component companies, optics companies, and virtually all electronics companies. The military has to use the same components in order to be able to benefit from lower production costs due to economies of scale.
Save your venom for the companies that build the actual war machines. And even then pause to consider that your country's military is also tasked with defending your way of life.
I personally think they bought them because of the fish.
could be. i personally think good ol' steve wanted them to stop making killing machines with the that technology, and instead make beautiful products that will change the world.
1) You assume that Apple didn't research the company before buying
2) You assume that Apple is going to dead stop supplying P.A. Semi customers
3) You throw out indictment, albeit misspelled, implying a serious crime is being committed by Apple
That is pretty ballsy. Do you have any supporting evidence?
I admit that I may not know as much about all the technicalities of all these articles, as I am just a college student majoring in art. I did not mean to assume that Apple is going to stop supplication altogether, and I know that the company probably researched these guys, as they've been in contact for about three or four years. I also did not mean to say that Apple is committing a crime here. I am just hoping that Apple plays it smart with the possibility that the U.S. Military might block this deal.
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period.
...
As amazing as this might seem to you, most people here know what war means. That is not the point. Even though there may be members of this forum who support war, none of them have said so in this thread. What we are saying is that there is no escaping industries that support the military.
If you eat food, wear clothes, or live in shelter, then you patronize industries that support the military. In my previous post, I told you that the military uses everything. I won't get into detail, but the only way that you are going to avoid some contact with military support is to jump off the nearest cliff. And even then, only afterwards.
Because so many people took me to task over my comment I have to respond and the response is ...
Duh!
You guys are so hot to jump in and defend the War industry that you aren't thinking straight.
Did you all seriously think I was under the impression that the US Military uses only Windows and Linux? Or that anyone in the military should be actively prevented from buying a MacBook? That's absolutely asinine. That's why I said "War Industry" and not "the Armed Forces," or "a Marine."
There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period.
If a company is involved in making a product that enables some general to slaughter a few more brown skinned women and children somewhere, then I don't want to do business with that company. I think that's an entirely reasonable position.
Not only do I not see where that matters, but I don't care.
Wait, that's not true! I do care. I want companies to make parts for our military.
It's awfully naive to think that if companies didn't do this that we would be safer. That's nonsense!
I'm not a pacifist. Pacifists need to have their beliefs defended by those who are not pacifists. If you don't understand that, you aren't bringing anything useful to any debate on the subject.
It would be a lucky coincidence if one of the military electronic products knocked out of production by this is the new hand-held "lie detector". Unreliable polygraph technology made more unreliable with fewer biometrics and one week of user training instead of a college degree. Not something anyone should want to catch on.
It would be a lucky coincidence if one of the military electronic products knocked out of production by this is the new hand-held "lie detector". Unreliable polygraph technology made more unreliable with fewer biometrics and one week of user training instead of a college degree. Not something anyone should want to catch on.
Aren't those costing around $3,000? Personally, I think an investment in body armour would be a better for our troops.
I can't see Apple going back to a PPC architecture. A lot of software is Intel-only. Perhaps they will use the intellectual property along with their Intel partnership to produce some exclusive x86 chips that make Apple's products better.
I can see them using POWER for applicances. Not Macs.
Quote:
So that's why the XBox 360 power brick is so small:
Compared to a PC PSU, that's small. In addition the XBox360 started life as two extremely fast 90nm chips, the CPU and GPU. Now they're both 65nm, and when they're 45nm the PSU will be a lot smaller (and probably integrated into the console's case).
Quote:
Presumably the Intel equivalent would have a bigger one? Chip architecture aside, the PPC developer tools are terrible and in the end, software optimization really matters. Theoretically, Altivec should have meant Mac apps ran faster than their PC equivalents and they didn't.
Altivec applications were incredibly fast, but limited by a slow memory bus or the high latency G5 chipset. Intel took a long time to catch up to Altivec with the hacky SSE2/SSE3/SSE4 instruction sets, but they did have the memory bandwidth sorted out, and this will get even better later this year when the memory controllers move on-die.
Quote:
In an ideal world, maybe PPC would be the better option but it's about compromise in order to deliver a cost-effective, powerful product and IBM consistently fail in that regard.
The Nintendo PPC chips are very slow, the XBox 360 chips are hot and power hungry meaning red rings of death, huge power supplies and noisy fans. The PS3 is just far too expensive and the developer tools are very difficult to work with and therefore it greatly underperforms - this means games come out for the XBox 360 first and a lot of titles look better on the 360 and some don't even make it to the PS3.
The Nintendo Wii uses <20W at full pelt, the entire system - CPU, GPU, etc.
The XBox360's RROD issue is down to the GPU's heat.
The PS3 is a reasonable price for what you get, if you need all that. The PS3 version of GTA4 performs better than the XBox360 version, so people are getting the hang of it now, remember the 360 was out for a year, and it takes time for experience to develop.
None of these problems are POWER related issues however. None. Nada.
Quote:
In summary, PPC chips are slow, hot and expensive - we are all familiar with that experience from the PPC Macs.
No. All rubbish. IBM make 5GHz POWER chips, and <$10 PowerPC SoCs. There just wasn't a CPU suitable for desktop use.
Quote:
We'll never know if Intel chips would have made the consoles better because it depends on the implementation but the decision to go PPC was made a while ago and looking at the gaming scene, I think it was a big mistake.
Rubbish. Fact is that Intel couldn't have provided a suitable CPU in 2005 for the XBox360 (certainly not a tri-core 3.2GHz SMT chip like Xenon). Console makers demand control over their components, the ability to own the design, so later on in life they can integrate and merge and cut costs drastically (often paying little more than fabrication cost for the CPUs).
Quote:
But the final issue is scalability. Could the PPC chips be delivered in a sufficient quantity and time scale? At least Intel deliver on chips. IBM for example seems to have nothing for years and then BAM 5GHz. You can't rely on that cycle. To sustain long term growth, you need incremental updates and be able to deliver supply for demand.
IBM have been steadily increasing the performance of their server CPUs over the past umpteen years. Sadly you clearly haven't seen this. Neither has much of this technology filtered down into consumer-grade CPUs. Things like virtualisation, dual-core, L3 caches, etc, were on POWER long before x86.
I can't see Apple going back to a PPC architecture.
Not for macs, I agree. But most of their embedded devices already run ARMs, not x86. iPhone runs OS X on ARM.
Quote:
So that's why the XBox 360 power brick is so small ... Presumably the Intel equivalent would have a bigger one? Chip architecture aside, the PPC developer tools are terrible and in the end, software optimization really matters. Theoretically, Altivec should have meant Mac apps ran faster than their PC equivalents and they didn't.
Microsoft evaluated Intel and IBM when designing the 360, and we know who won. PPCs are better for high performance embedded use -- this, and server use, is their intended market.
Quote:
The Nintendo PPC chips are very slow, the XBox 360 chips are hot and power hungry meaning red rings of death, huge power supplies and noisy fans. The PS3 is just far too expensive and the developer tools are very difficult to work with and therefore it greatly underperforms - this means games come out for the XBox 360 first and a lot of titles look better on the 360 and some don't even make it to the PS3.
What's your point? These companies could have used Intel, and they didn't. A coin toss was not the method they used to decide, either.
Quote:
In summary, PPC chips are slow, hot and expensive - we are all familiar with that experience from the PPC Macs. ... We'll never know if Intel chips would have made the consoles better because it depends on the implementation but the decision to go PPC was made a while ago and looking at the gaming scene, I think it was a big mistake.
This is a manifesto, not a reasoned argument. You have no facts. The only facts we have established:
1. The the PPC core is much smaller than x86, which lends itself well to multi-coring.
2. The PPC has a great FPU.
3. The three game industry giants picked PPC.
I'm all for using the best tool for the job. For macs, the Intel Core2 seems to be the best tool for the job. For high performance embedded use, the PPC is the champ. For future iPhones & Tablets (or whatever), I think the strengths of the PPC as a flexible core become evident. For example, if you are releasing a 4G smartphone and need a gutsy 2-core CPU with an equally gutsy bank of ALUs, the guys from P.A. Semi can go into a room for a few weeks and come out with a design suited for that, based on the PPC.
Intel doesn't do that sort of stuff, and 3rd party x86 designs have never worked very well. Intel has never understood embedded, and I don't see it happening anytime soon. In the age of SoC's, the Atom is a sleek but ultimately undesirable solution.
Did you all seriously think I was under the impression that the US Military uses only Windows and Linux? Or that anyone in the military should be actively prevented from buying a MacBook? That's absolutely asinine. That's why I said "War Industry" and not "the Armed Forces," or "a Marine."
Yes, and the DoD purchases, directly, many components from many different vendors. Furthermore, there are generic PCs and software actively used to develop weapons. Where do you draw the line?
Quote:
There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
Weapons tend to use normal parts. I guess you'll have to make sure you never buy a product that contains parts from at least the following semiconductor giants:
Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, STMicro, Freescale, Qualcomm ...
Basically, go live in a farming commune with no electricity.
Quote:
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period. ... If a company is involved in making a product that enables some general to slaughter a few more brown skinned women and children somewhere, then I don't want to do business with that company. I think that's an entirely reasonable position.
The general mission of the modern military is a peacekeeping role. Some people don't like the current Iraq conflict, but, regardless of how you feel, the use of high-tech weapons has minimized casualties. We could end this overnight by nuking the area into oblivion, but that's not the mission. Mines and such laid by Iraqi partisans have killed many times more civilians and servicemen than have the high-tech US/allied forces.
I'll be blunt: A Dual-Core PPC 64 Bit Processor running at 2Ghz that uses between 5-15 Watts is never going to run HOT.
That's true, but it doesn't exlain why Apple bought this.
If it's also true, as we keep reading, that Apple doesn't want the products, and might discontinue them, what expertise did they buy this company for?
Apple isn't suddenly going back into the chip design business.
I remember a few years back that Apple bought a gpu design firm. But nothing came from that either. People here were predicting great new gpu's from Apple as other companies weren't making boards for Apple (other than ATI). What happened? Nothing!
Because so many people took me to task over my comment I have to respond and the response is ...
Duh!
You guys are so hot to jump in and defend the War industry that you aren't thinking straight.
Did you all seriously think I was under the impression that the US Military uses only Windows and Linux? Or that anyone in the military should be actively prevented from buying a MacBook? That's absolutely asinine. That's why I said "War Industry" and not "the Armed Forces," or "a Marine."
There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period.
If a company is involved in making a product that enables some general to slaughter a few more brown skinned women and children somewhere, then I don't want to do business with that company. I think that's an entirely reasonable position.
I work for the defense industry and I don't mind making weapons. Actually, I wouldn't mind if our weapons kill you either. Go hug a tree.
With the trend of contract fabrication and licensable cores, going back into the chip business is a good idea for a company of apple's size.
I don't see that anymore. Once it made sense. In fact, with the PPC alliance, it did make sense.
But with Apple on x86 for its Macs and ATv, it makes more sense to move to x86 all 'round.
Why should Apple support, real time, two chip architectures?
I can see them doing it on the back burner, so to speak, but not full time.
I can't find a reason for this. The word is out that they don't want the products, so what else is left? Expertise? That's what the word is. But for what?
I work for the defense industry and I don't mind making weapons. Actually, I wouldn't mind if our weapons kill you either. Go hug a tree.
All this war talk that got injected into this thread is unnecessary and irrelevant. This is not the proper time nor place for this type of discussion. That being said, your comment was totally out of line, and pissed me off.
My personal view is that you are exactly the type of crass, insolent troglodyte
that retards the evolution of society and humanity itself. The military-industrial complex, the "private security contractors" (mercenaries), and their war-starting co-conspirators in power represent great stains on our flag... and have brought immeasurable shame to this country. Much more tragic than these abstract concepts, however, was the very real pain, suffering, and death that was brought to an unfathomable amount of people through their belligerent actions.
Having many relatives that are public servants or in the service, I was incredibly proud of this nation after 9/11 and was in awe at how not only Americans, but people from all over the world came together afterwards. It is incredibly sad and dispiriting to see how all that good will and trust was so taken advantage of and recklessly abused by a few wretched individuals.
Comments
There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
When it comes to components used to build the machines of war, you're still being naive. The military uses the same components as the consumer industry, albeit often higher grade versions (which are also used by the aerospace and other industries). Consider, for examples, tire companies, engine component companies, optics companies, and virtually all electronics companies. The military has to use the same components in order to be able to benefit from lower production costs due to economies of scale.
Save your venom for the companies that build the actual war machines. And even then pause to consider that your country's military is also tasked with defending your way of life.
I personally think they bought them because of the fish.
could be. i personally think good ol' steve wanted them to stop making killing machines with the that technology, and instead make beautiful products that will change the world.
1) You assume that Apple didn't research the company before buying
2) You assume that Apple is going to dead stop supplying P.A. Semi customers
3) You throw out indictment, albeit misspelled, implying a serious crime is being committed by Apple
That is pretty ballsy. Do you have any supporting evidence?
I admit that I may not know as much about all the technicalities of all these articles, as I am just a college student majoring in art. I did not mean to assume that Apple is going to stop supplication altogether, and I know that the company probably researched these guys, as they've been in contact for about three or four years. I also did not mean to say that Apple is committing a crime here. I am just hoping that Apple plays it smart with the possibility that the U.S. Military might block this deal.
...
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period.
...
As amazing as this might seem to you, most people here know what war means. That is not the point. Even though there may be members of this forum who support war, none of them have said so in this thread. What we are saying is that there is no escaping industries that support the military.
If you eat food, wear clothes, or live in shelter, then you patronize industries that support the military. In my previous post, I told you that the military uses everything. I won't get into detail, but the only way that you are going to avoid some contact with military support is to jump off the nearest cliff. And even then, only afterwards.
Because so many people took me to task over my comment I have to respond and the response is ...
Duh!
You guys are so hot to jump in and defend the War industry that you aren't thinking straight.
Did you all seriously think I was under the impression that the US Military uses only Windows and Linux? Or that anyone in the military should be actively prevented from buying a MacBook? That's absolutely asinine. That's why I said "War Industry" and not "the Armed Forces," or "a Marine."
There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period.
If a company is involved in making a product that enables some general to slaughter a few more brown skinned women and children somewhere, then I don't want to do business with that company. I think that's an entirely reasonable position.
Not only do I not see where that matters, but I don't care.
Wait, that's not true! I do care. I want companies to make parts for our military.
It's awfully naive to think that if companies didn't do this that we would be safer. That's nonsense!
I'm not a pacifist. Pacifists need to have their beliefs defended by those who are not pacifists. If you don't understand that, you aren't bringing anything useful to any debate on the subject.
It would be a lucky coincidence if one of the military electronic products knocked out of production by this is the new hand-held "lie detector". Unreliable polygraph technology made more unreliable with fewer biometrics and one week of user training instead of a college degree. Not something anyone should want to catch on.
Aren't those costing around $3,000? Personally, I think an investment in body armour would be a better for our troops.
Aren't those costing around $3,000? Personally, I think an investment in body armour would be a better for our troops.
Or a new president.
I can't see Apple going back to a PPC architecture. A lot of software is Intel-only. Perhaps they will use the intellectual property along with their Intel partnership to produce some exclusive x86 chips that make Apple's products better.
I can see them using POWER for applicances. Not Macs.
So that's why the XBox 360 power brick is so small:
Compared to a PC PSU, that's small. In addition the XBox360 started life as two extremely fast 90nm chips, the CPU and GPU. Now they're both 65nm, and when they're 45nm the PSU will be a lot smaller (and probably integrated into the console's case).
Presumably the Intel equivalent would have a bigger one? Chip architecture aside, the PPC developer tools are terrible and in the end, software optimization really matters. Theoretically, Altivec should have meant Mac apps ran faster than their PC equivalents and they didn't.
Altivec applications were incredibly fast, but limited by a slow memory bus or the high latency G5 chipset. Intel took a long time to catch up to Altivec with the hacky SSE2/SSE3/SSE4 instruction sets, but they did have the memory bandwidth sorted out, and this will get even better later this year when the memory controllers move on-die.
In an ideal world, maybe PPC would be the better option but it's about compromise in order to deliver a cost-effective, powerful product and IBM consistently fail in that regard.
The Nintendo PPC chips are very slow, the XBox 360 chips are hot and power hungry meaning red rings of death, huge power supplies and noisy fans. The PS3 is just far too expensive and the developer tools are very difficult to work with and therefore it greatly underperforms - this means games come out for the XBox 360 first and a lot of titles look better on the 360 and some don't even make it to the PS3.
The Nintendo Wii uses <20W at full pelt, the entire system - CPU, GPU, etc.
The XBox360's RROD issue is down to the GPU's heat.
The PS3 is a reasonable price for what you get, if you need all that. The PS3 version of GTA4 performs better than the XBox360 version, so people are getting the hang of it now, remember the 360 was out for a year, and it takes time for experience to develop.
None of these problems are POWER related issues however. None. Nada.
In summary, PPC chips are slow, hot and expensive - we are all familiar with that experience from the PPC Macs.
No. All rubbish. IBM make 5GHz POWER chips, and <$10 PowerPC SoCs. There just wasn't a CPU suitable for desktop use.
We'll never know if Intel chips would have made the consoles better because it depends on the implementation but the decision to go PPC was made a while ago and looking at the gaming scene, I think it was a big mistake.
Rubbish. Fact is that Intel couldn't have provided a suitable CPU in 2005 for the XBox360 (certainly not a tri-core 3.2GHz SMT chip like Xenon). Console makers demand control over their components, the ability to own the design, so later on in life they can integrate and merge and cut costs drastically (often paying little more than fabrication cost for the CPUs).
But the final issue is scalability. Could the PPC chips be delivered in a sufficient quantity and time scale? At least Intel deliver on chips. IBM for example seems to have nothing for years and then BAM 5GHz. You can't rely on that cycle. To sustain long term growth, you need incremental updates and be able to deliver supply for demand.
IBM have been steadily increasing the performance of their server CPUs over the past umpteen years. Sadly you clearly haven't seen this. Neither has much of this technology filtered down into consumer-grade CPUs. Things like virtualisation, dual-core, L3 caches, etc, were on POWER long before x86.
Having never successfully called anything like this in my life, I've got to do as little dance that I successfully called the reason for this purchase of P.A. Semi yesterday.
YAY! OK.. that's enough gloating... back to work for me.
Your not the only one that called this yesterday.
I can't see Apple going back to a PPC architecture.
Not for macs, I agree. But most of their embedded devices already run ARMs, not x86. iPhone runs OS X on ARM.
So that's why the XBox 360 power brick is so small ... Presumably the Intel equivalent would have a bigger one? Chip architecture aside, the PPC developer tools are terrible and in the end, software optimization really matters. Theoretically, Altivec should have meant Mac apps ran faster than their PC equivalents and they didn't.
Microsoft evaluated Intel and IBM when designing the 360, and we know who won. PPCs are better for high performance embedded use -- this, and server use, is their intended market.
The Nintendo PPC chips are very slow, the XBox 360 chips are hot and power hungry meaning red rings of death, huge power supplies and noisy fans. The PS3 is just far too expensive and the developer tools are very difficult to work with and therefore it greatly underperforms - this means games come out for the XBox 360 first and a lot of titles look better on the 360 and some don't even make it to the PS3.
What's your point? These companies could have used Intel, and they didn't. A coin toss was not the method they used to decide, either.
In summary, PPC chips are slow, hot and expensive - we are all familiar with that experience from the PPC Macs. ... We'll never know if Intel chips would have made the consoles better because it depends on the implementation but the decision to go PPC was made a while ago and looking at the gaming scene, I think it was a big mistake.
This is a manifesto, not a reasoned argument. You have no facts. The only facts we have established:
1. The the PPC core is much smaller than x86, which lends itself well to multi-coring.
2. The PPC has a great FPU.
3. The three game industry giants picked PPC.
I'm all for using the best tool for the job. For macs, the Intel Core2 seems to be the best tool for the job. For high performance embedded use, the PPC is the champ. For future iPhones & Tablets (or whatever), I think the strengths of the PPC as a flexible core become evident. For example, if you are releasing a 4G smartphone and need a gutsy 2-core CPU with an equally gutsy bank of ALUs, the guys from P.A. Semi can go into a room for a few weeks and come out with a design suited for that, based on the PPC.
Intel doesn't do that sort of stuff, and 3rd party x86 designs have never worked very well. Intel has never understood embedded, and I don't see it happening anytime soon. In the age of SoC's, the Atom is a sleek but ultimately undesirable solution.
Did you all seriously think I was under the impression that the US Military uses only Windows and Linux? Or that anyone in the military should be actively prevented from buying a MacBook? That's absolutely asinine. That's why I said "War Industry" and not "the Armed Forces," or "a Marine."
Yes, and the DoD purchases, directly, many components from many different vendors. Furthermore, there are generic PCs and software actively used to develop weapons. Where do you draw the line?
There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
Weapons tend to use normal parts. I guess you'll have to make sure you never buy a product that contains parts from at least the following semiconductor giants:
Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments, Analog Devices, STMicro, Freescale, Qualcomm ...
Basically, go live in a farming commune with no electricity.
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period. ... If a company is involved in making a product that enables some general to slaughter a few more brown skinned women and children somewhere, then I don't want to do business with that company. I think that's an entirely reasonable position.
The general mission of the modern military is a peacekeeping role. Some people don't like the current Iraq conflict, but, regardless of how you feel, the use of high-tech weapons has minimized casualties. We could end this overnight by nuking the area into oblivion, but that's not the mission. Mines and such laid by Iraqi partisans have killed many times more civilians and servicemen than have the high-tech US/allied forces.
I'll be blunt: A Dual-Core PPC 64 Bit Processor running at 2Ghz that uses between 5-15 Watts is never going to run HOT.
That's true, but it doesn't exlain why Apple bought this.
If it's also true, as we keep reading, that Apple doesn't want the products, and might discontinue them, what expertise did they buy this company for?
Apple isn't suddenly going back into the chip design business.
I remember a few years back that Apple bought a gpu design firm. But nothing came from that either. People here were predicting great new gpu's from Apple as other companies weren't making boards for Apple (other than ATI). What happened? Nothing!
Because so many people took me to task over my comment I have to respond and the response is ...
Duh!
You guys are so hot to jump in and defend the War industry that you aren't thinking straight.
Did you all seriously think I was under the impression that the US Military uses only Windows and Linux? Or that anyone in the military should be actively prevented from buying a MacBook? That's absolutely asinine. That's why I said "War Industry" and not "the Armed Forces," or "a Marine."
There is however, a really big difference between supporting a company that makes computers that *may* be used by anyone (including military people), and supporting a company that makes chips that go directly into bombs and missiles.
If you work in the "War Industry" you are supporting, advocating, and enabling the deaths of other human beings. Period.
If a company is involved in making a product that enables some general to slaughter a few more brown skinned women and children somewhere, then I don't want to do business with that company. I think that's an entirely reasonable position.
I work for the defense industry and I don't mind making weapons. Actually, I wouldn't mind if our weapons kill you either. Go hug a tree.
Apple isn't suddenly going back into the chip design business.
With the trend of contract fabrication and licensable cores, going back into the chip business is a good idea for a company of apple's size.
With the trend of contract fabrication and licensable cores, going back into the chip business is a good idea for a company of apple's size.
I don't see that anymore. Once it made sense. In fact, with the PPC alliance, it did make sense.
But with Apple on x86 for its Macs and ATv, it makes more sense to move to x86 all 'round.
Why should Apple support, real time, two chip architectures?
I can see them doing it on the back burner, so to speak, but not full time.
I can't find a reason for this. The word is out that they don't want the products, so what else is left? Expertise? That's what the word is. But for what?
What are the engineers that they just paid tons of money for gonna put out...
do they already have something in mind
im gonna go look up the patents under PA's name
I work for the defense industry and I don't mind making weapons. Actually, I wouldn't mind if our weapons kill you either. Go hug a tree.
All this war talk that got injected into this thread is unnecessary and irrelevant. This is not the proper time nor place for this type of discussion. That being said, your comment was totally out of line, and pissed me off.
My personal view is that you are exactly the type of crass, insolent troglodyte
that retards the evolution of society and humanity itself. The military-industrial complex, the "private security contractors" (mercenaries), and their war-starting co-conspirators in power represent great stains on our flag... and have brought immeasurable shame to this country. Much more tragic than these abstract concepts, however, was the very real pain, suffering, and death that was brought to an unfathomable amount of people through their belligerent actions.
Having many relatives that are public servants or in the service, I was incredibly proud of this nation after 9/11 and was in awe at how not only Americans, but people from all over the world came together afterwards. It is incredibly sad and dispiriting to see how all that good will and trust was so taken advantage of and recklessly abused by a few wretched individuals.
but you are just trying to make a buck, right?
</rant>