Does Dvorak know something the rest of us don't? Apple really has no good reason to move to the Itanium, unless Intel were willing to fork over some serious dough to make it happen. Even then, OS X on Itanium would go the way that NT on PPC did (I wonder how much Motoslowa forked over to MS to make that one happen). Why else on earth would Apple take a server chip like this one and put it into a desktop machine? They would be better off using the Power4 or Power5 chip if they were going to do this, and even that is a fairly crazy idea. With the Itanium completely unproven in the marketplace, Apple would also be taking quite a risk. Perhaps Dvorak sees Apple driving the adoption of the Itanium chip in much the same fashion as they drove the adoption of USB. It is simply wishful thinking and I wonder how much Intel stock Dvorak owns. At least he admits that Apple can make transitional leaps with relative ease (and I use the term "relative" fairly loosely). In fact, he seems to think that Apple can do it better than Microsoft. That seems to bode poorly for Microsoft's future in the 64 bit arena, but that is another issue. I don't see Apple deviating from the PowerPC as long as IBM commits the resources to keeping the chip competitive. I don't see IBM giving up on the PPC either as it is IBM's means to regain ascendency in the microcomputer market and unseat both MS and Intel eventually. If Intel is committing large amounts of resources to make this happen, Apple might oblige. Otherwise, Dvorak is completely out of his mind. There is no way Apple would do this on their own. The 970 has too many advantages. The Itanium, however, has perhaps a couple--Intel's name and HPaq's unwavering commitment. Unfortunately for Intel, those few advantages won't be enough. Though Intel can weather any challenge from AMD, they won't be able to use the same tactics against IBM. No amount of wishful thinking from Dvorak or anyone else will change the situation either. I am still waiting for the delivery of the 970 machines and can't wait to see how they benchmark in the real world against the Itanium in running emulated x86 code. If it is even close, the Itanium is a dead duck. It doesn't mean that AMD will win either. It just means that Intel will discount their 32 bit processors to the point that they drive AMD out of business before x86-64 even gets a chance. Besides, Intel, I bet, would be willing to fork out the bucks to MS to keep 64 bit x86 Windows from ever seeing the light of day. Microsoft would be foolish to bet the farm on AMD and leave out Intel (perhaps Intel might throw their dollars into making Linux elegant and render Windows irrelevant as the ultimate form of retaliation). It essentially leaves the Opteron with only Linux going against the 970 in the same arena. AMD just cannot compete with IBM for any length of time. I do have to give AMD credit for trying, but they simply don't have the resources or size to stay with Intel, much less IBM. I dare say that the sun is simply not shining on the future of x86 or EPIC. It is strange to see how a small computer maker like Apple drives the industry and determines the success of the next 64 bit processor. At least Dvorak gets this part right. The people at IBM saw this and built a processor specifically for Apple. The smart folks at Intel should have seen this one coming. They had their chance to buy out NeXT, Be, or even Eazel, but did not. They had a chance to advance computing, but chose not to. They stayed cozy with Microsoft and are going to pay a very dear price. If they start now and throw everything they can at bringing an elegant 64 bit Linux or Unix to the market running on Itanium, they might survive. Although AMD is really no threat, they don't have time to wait for Microsoft to work out the bugs in a Windows version for Itanium. OS X on the 970 is expected to come within the end of the year and will likely gain fairly significant marketshare (I know, end of the year is pessimistic, but I am taking a worst case scenario). I don't see the Itanium competing in the server arena against IBM's Power chips. Intel has to bring the Itanium to the desktop in order to move enough volume to survive. Their 32 bit x86 chips have some life, but cannot be expected to remain competitive for very long. Apple and IBM are in an amazing position and it is very hard to believe. Did Intel really believe that Apple would die? Did they really believe that the classic OS would drive Apple into oblivion? I can't believe that Intel couldn't see the threat of the PowerPC. They must have seen the toasted bunnies commercials. Somehow, they thought the PowerPC would never amount to anything due to the OS it ran. They never saw Apple as a threat. Now, they have to hope that Apple ports to their chips in order to maintain long term viability. What a change. So, while I can criticize Dvorak's wishful thinking, I cannot criticize his logic for desiring that Apple port to the Itanium to ensure its relevance.
Well I will repeat what I said in January when Steve Jobs was the keynote speaker January's Intel sales conference. This was because Pixar announced that it would become an Intel shop.
It was smart of Steve to leave Sun Micro and go with Intel. Pixar needed to upgrand and Intel was the way to go. But in 2004 or 2005 when pixar announces that it is going to IBM/Mac platform because of the power & software advantage. Do you think Apple has been buying all these software companies to run this stuff on a dual 1.4 Moto G4.
So while Intel can smile now, I will bet when steve says "The IBM/Mac Platform is the best platform for Pixar or any other production company to use because of the speed, powerful production software and the stable Mac OS." Intel won't be all smiles then.
As everyone mentioned, he didn't even mention the PowerPC 970 which Apple is going to use. Why would Apple go to the work of moving things over to Itanium when the PowerPC 970 is going to be much better than the Itanium.
Why on earth would Apple create a hybrid machine with a G4 and an Intel chip inside it. I would assume this would require a complex architecture to support the two. Also the PowerMac already costs enough with just a G4 in it, it's gonna be more expensive with a G4 and Intel chip.
I don't think we'll have to wait 12-18 months to see that his article is pure BS. It already stinks like BS now. And within 6 months, when Apple intros the new PowerMacs with the PowerPC 970, he'll see how stupid he was.
This guy is sooooooo full of it. He's been off on his predictions for years going all the way back to that Cnet show ( where when ever he talked about Apple he couldn't get his facts straight ). I guess he doesn't read the news. How does he keep his job? Comic relief?
Dvorak is also wrong in his contention that Pixar (SJ's other company) switched from Macs to Intel. They have not. They switched from Sun to Intel because the machines are cheaper. Macs are still used for many things at Pixar including some early rendering, design, etc. His smirkiness needs to get another job, even TechTV dropped the personality deficient bad dresser. Oh, let's not make this personal.
And again.. is it confirmed that Steve Jobs was at the Intel convention or not? I haven't seen anything other than third hand information and certainly no pictures. I really hope someone at the Intel camp is fanatical enough to have a camera with them at such an event.
I don't know why y'all are so riled up. The guy posts some (MOSR style) Wild Ass Guesses, with a little factual knowledge to back it up, and you're calling him an ignorant slut, a moron, etc.
He may have points. He may not.
I personally don't think Apple will swith to Intel/AMD while the PPC still has life left in it. And with IBM, it has life.
If things don't pan out with the PPC 9XX, THEN maybe I can see switching to Intel.
And christ, Itanic is such a failure, in terms of performance, cost, and ease of migration. I would hope Apple would switch to something faster/smaller/cheaper, something more... elegant.
But yeah near term things are looking PPC all the way. Intel would be a last ditch option, or perhaps an option when Apple has 20%+ marketshare (to stick it in M$, and twist the knife). To move into Microsoft's turf with a better OS.
And again.. is it confirmed that Steve Jobs was at the Intel convention or not? I haven't seen anything other than third hand information and certainly no pictures. I really hope someone at the Intel camp is fanatical enough to have a camera with them at such an event.
Yup, there was video and everything. Don't have a link handy though
Yup, there was video and everything. Don't have a link handy though
Actually, there is a sound file on the Internet, not a video. There is also a most dubious picture. The picture is dubious because the Apple logo is featured prominently. Yet, according to the report, Jobs was there in his capacity as CEO of Pixar talking about Pixar business. Nothing in these reports had anything to do with Apple. Let's get serious. If Apple were to switch to Intel, it would be the biggest technology story of the year. It might even be the biggest business story of the year. You would not have to search around for references to it on the Internet; you could learn everything you wanted to know in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC.
call me crazy, but I thought this article was pretty mild compared to some of the crap dvorak has said in the past. it didn't say "apple is dead" or anything else like that...it was just some off the wall prediction
Actually, there is a sound file on the Internet, not a video. There is also a most dubious picture. The picture is dubious because the Apple logo is featured prominently. Yet, according to the report, Jobs was there in his capacity as CEO of Pixar talking about Pixar business. Nothing in these reports had anything to do with Apple. Let's get serious. If Apple were to switch to Intel, it would be the biggest technology story of the year. It might even be the biggest business story of the year. You would not have to search around for references to it on the Internet; you could learn everything you wanted to know in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC.
I could have sworn I watched a video. Maybe I'm smoking too much crack.
Before Apple will swirch to Intel's Itanium 2 it will switch to IBM's Power4 or Power5 for it's server line while having the 970 in it's workstation and desktop lines. Remember the Power line of processors should run Mac OS X without a hitch.
Comments
It was smart of Steve to leave Sun Micro and go with Intel. Pixar needed to upgrand and Intel was the way to go. But in 2004 or 2005 when pixar announces that it is going to IBM/Mac platform because of the power & software advantage. Do you think Apple has been buying all these software companies to run this stuff on a dual 1.4 Moto G4.
So while Intel can smile now, I will bet when steve says "The IBM/Mac Platform is the best platform for Pixar or any other production company to use because of the speed, powerful production software and the stable Mac OS." Intel won't be all smiles then.
This post was done just to get hits. Everyone knows OSX on Intel is a last resort and one not without it's own pitfalls.
As everyone mentioned, he didn't even mention the PowerPC 970 which Apple is going to use. Why would Apple go to the work of moving things over to Itanium when the PowerPC 970 is going to be much better than the Itanium.
Why on earth would Apple create a hybrid machine with a G4 and an Intel chip inside it. I would assume this would require a complex architecture to support the two. Also the PowerMac already costs enough with just a G4 in it, it's gonna be more expensive with a G4 and Intel chip.
I don't think we'll have to wait 12-18 months to see that his article is pure BS. It already stinks like BS now. And within 6 months, when Apple intros the new PowerMacs with the PowerPC 970, he'll see how stupid he was.
I didn't read the article!
I just skipped down here to post that.
Boy I feel good right now!
He may have points. He may not.
I personally don't think Apple will swith to Intel/AMD while the PPC still has life left in it. And with IBM, it has life.
If things don't pan out with the PPC 9XX, THEN maybe I can see switching to Intel.
And christ, Itanic is such a failure, in terms of performance, cost, and ease of migration. I would hope Apple would switch to something faster/smaller/cheaper, something more... elegant.
But yeah near term things are looking PPC all the way. Intel would be a last ditch option, or perhaps an option when Apple has 20%+ marketshare (to stick it in M$, and twist the knife). To move into Microsoft's turf with a better OS.
Originally posted by Henriok
And again.. is it confirmed that Steve Jobs was at the Intel convention or not? I haven't seen anything other than third hand information and certainly no pictures. I really hope someone at the Intel camp is fanatical enough to have a camera with them at such an event.
Yup, there was video and everything. Don't have a link handy though
Originally posted by Flounder
Yup, there was video and everything. Don't have a link handy though
Actually, there is a sound file on the Internet, not a video. There is also a most dubious picture. The picture is dubious because the Apple logo is featured prominently. Yet, according to the report, Jobs was there in his capacity as CEO of Pixar talking about Pixar business. Nothing in these reports had anything to do with Apple. Let's get serious. If Apple were to switch to Intel, it would be the biggest technology story of the year. It might even be the biggest business story of the year. You would not have to search around for references to it on the Internet; you could learn everything you wanted to know in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC.
"You're crazy". OK?
Originally posted by Mr. Me
Actually, there is a sound file on the Internet, not a video. There is also a most dubious picture. The picture is dubious because the Apple logo is featured prominently. Yet, according to the report, Jobs was there in his capacity as CEO of Pixar talking about Pixar business. Nothing in these reports had anything to do with Apple. Let's get serious. If Apple were to switch to Intel, it would be the biggest technology story of the year. It might even be the biggest business story of the year. You would not have to search around for references to it on the Internet; you could learn everything you wanted to know in the Wall Street Journal and CNBC.
I could have sworn I watched a video. Maybe I'm smoking too much crack.
pc mag, 4/7 '03