Moto putting the slap down on IBM!
<a href="http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20020129S0036"; target="_blank">http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20020129S0036</A>;
Sounds like IBM will not ship at the 1 GHZ level until latter in the year.
For some strange reason, I am feeling a little better about Moto now.
I hope its not a false sense of security.
Sounds like IBM will not ship at the 1 GHZ level until latter in the year.
For some strange reason, I am feeling a little better about Moto now.
I hope its not a false sense of security.
Comments
<strong><a href="http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20020129S0036"; target="_blank">http://www.eet.com/story/OEG20020129S0036</a>;
Sounds like IBM will not ship at the 1 GHZ level until latter in the year.
For some strange reason, I am feeling a little better about Moto now.
I hope its not a false sense of security.
I would like your sense of security to know this: When I interviewed there in 1998, they had some of the big boys clocked higher than 1GHz. While they were expensive, it proved to me what IBM was capable of.
Why would IBM not be shipping 1GHz processors to Apple? Perhaps the yield is low, perhaps the design is old (even the current generation 750cxe still has the 4 stage pipeline inherited from the 603 if you look at <a href="http://www.chips.ibm.com)." target="_blank">www.chips.ibm.com).</a> Perhaps chips clocked that high from that architecture consume more power than their customers demand? For me, the ultimate question is not why is IBM doing what it's doing, but what will it do in the future?