what is the matter with you people, your reading way to far into an off hand remark. maybe if SJ had some elaborate, yet hypothetical conversation with this reporter concerning your misplaced desires to have intel inside apples ass, then yeah this topic would be warranted. such a conversation never took place, well outside your delusional psychotic episodes at any rate. so we have a "possibility" of something grand and wondrous in the near future, and that too might be reading into that statement a bit much. anything beyond that is gross and overindulgent speculation from overly active imaginations. listen to the developers, it would be a nightmare, knife twisting transition for apple (sorry for the paraphrase ladies an gents, hope you can forgive) to try and get "EVERYTHING" over to X86 on the heels of the classic-X transition. i for one would seriously consider dropping the apple/mac after about 20 years of use, aqua has brought me pretty damn close already. selling out to the wintel world would be the final act in apples fall from grace, the only thing worse would be them selling out to the RIAA. maybe you could, can or will construe my arguments as being at fault in logic or authority, but this theory lacks merit for further contemplation.
decent... decent?.. From the man who coined the phrase "Insanely Great", decent sounds like "poor".
MSKR
</strong><hr></blockquote>
If the stories about how he reacted to the great magahertz drought of 1999" (Moto stuck at 500 forever) have any truth to them, I think his concept of decent may be better then ours.
there is also this disruptive archetecture emerging:
"grid and cluster server technology"
One recent article concerned the monster Linux cluster system being constructed for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. When complete, the cluster will combine 1,920 Xeon CPUs into a system capable of generating 9.2 trillion calculations a second. Unfortunately for chip makers like Intel, grid and cluster architecture means that the fastest way to improve overall performance may not involve paying big money to buy the next generation of Itanium 2 CPUs. The Xeon chip was new in 1998.
First of all calling C a high level language is an interesting statement. C is one of the most high performing languages above Assembler code becuase it is so LOW level. I mean yeah it's easier to do more complicated stuff than Basic, Fortran, Cobal, or any of the others, but it's not high level.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
C shure IS a high level languge AFAIK. Any language that is independent of the hardware's instruction-set is considered to be, according to every thing I've ever read. That pretty much amounts to everything above assembler. I'm not really a programmer though, so everything I've read might be wrong, though it would surprise me. Any book on the history of computing will refer to C as high level.
"ZDNet has the bad news that AMD is still hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. Losses this quarter are $184.9 Million, compared to a profit of $17.4 million last year. Their revenue dropped from $985 million to $600 million, a very steep decrease. Analysts have urged AMD to introduce new chips at a higher margin and price-point in order to shore up the bottom line, but so far AMD isn't heeding the advice. Analysts speculate that in order to survive, AMD will have to find higher ground so that their chips are still less expensive than Intel but have a higher margin than they currently do. AMD will have to stop waging such a severe price-war, because unless it improves product margins, it cannot compete with the deep pockets of Intel, who currently has the fastest real-world performance in the desktop CPU market. Analysts seem to think that AMD customers would still be willing to buy AMD chips even at higher prices, provided they still offer fair value."
Firing Squad.com
Er. AMD are going to have to be careful. Intel do have deep pockets. They can sit this one out and watch AMD bleed to death.
Will Apple base their cpu roadmap on a company losing this amount of money? Motorola already are losing more than this.
However...would you move from one crisis company losing money to another?
Apple may be able to help them with their margins though... Especially in the Server space they just entered...hmmm.
<strong>"ZDNet has the bad news that AMD is still hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. Losses this quarter are $184.9 Million, compared to a profit of $17.4 million last year. Their revenue dropped from $985 million to $600 million, a very steep decrease. Analysts have urged AMD to introduce new chips at a higher margin and price-point in order to shore up the bottom line, but so far AMD isn't heeding the advice. Analysts speculate that in order to survive, AMD will have to find higher ground so that their chips are still less expensive than Intel but have a higher margin than they currently do. AMD will have to stop waging such a severe price-war, because unless it improves product margins, it cannot compete with the deep pockets of Intel, who currently has the fastest real-world performance in the desktop CPU market. Analysts seem to think that AMD customers would still be willing to buy AMD chips even at higher prices, provided they still offer fair value."
Firing Squad.com
Er. AMD are going to have to be careful. Intel do have deep pockets. They can sit this one out and watch AMD bleed to death.
Will Apple base their cpu roadmap on a company losing this amount of money? Motorola already are losing more than this.
However...would you move from one crisis company losing money to another?
Apple may be able to help them with their margins though... Especially in the Server space they just entered...hmmm.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
AMD has a really good opportunity with the X86-64 (Hammer) technology. It offers 64 bit power with true 32 bit compatibility. Intel has nothing that can compete at this point. MS has already confirmed they will be supporting this new architecture, so has the Linux community.
If this is successful, it will take intel a while to catch up. AMD needs to price these parts realistically, not at the firesale prices they sell the current Athlons at.
What I would REALLY like to see is a proprietary form of the X86-64 that Apple could use to replace the G series. It would take a modification of the OS, but not as much as many believe since BSD is extremely portable. However, all the apps would have to be redone to be workable on the platform. This would be even more disruptive than the switch to OS X in the first place.
The long term benefit to Apple would be that they have a company that innovates as their main supplier. AMD has legions of Athlon fanboys that would sing the praises of such a move. In the X86 enthusiast world, intel is second only to Microsoft in the sheer badwill they have generated. I know, I'm one of them. Enthusiasts have a lot of power in determining the direction of the market since they are influential to their friends, family, and the companies they work for.
Apple seems to discount the fanboy types, but I think they do this to their detriment. These guys have a lot of power.
The benefit to AMD would be that there would be a guaranteed market for at least a portion of their chips, chips they could sell at a bit of a premium and not be undersold by the grey market like happens currently.
I had a massive reply to something in this thread then my browser crashed. Now I'm just peeved
If I can be bothered I will rewrite it later today otherwise you can all just wonder about what wonderful things I had to say <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>The long term benefit to Apple would be that they have a company that innovates as their main supplier. </strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM already makes PowerPCs, they are extremely innovative, they aren't hemoragging badly, and Apple has an existing relationship with them. If IBM & Apple produced machines based on a new leading edge PowerPC, they'd have an enormous group of "fanboys" around them faster than you could blink -- "fanboys", at least the ones worth their salt, go where the cool stuff is.
IBM already makes PowerPCs, they are extremely innovative, they aren't hemoragging badly, and Apple has an existing relationship with them. If IBM & Apple produced machines based on a new leading edge PowerPC, they'd have an enormous group of "fanboys" around them faster than you could blink -- "fanboys", at least the ones worth their salt, go where the cool stuff is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM is the most relevant alternative chip supplier for the next generation of powermac.
#2 MacX86 systems would not be able to run PowerPC or 68K code. Even if the PowerPC code was emulated, it would be dog-slow.
#3 The Mac would lose the advantages of the PowerPC based Macs. As in lower power consumption, RISC based processing, etc.
#4 Apple would have to redesign the PC, maybe make a new ROM, improve Plug-N-Play (aka Plug-N-Pray), and remove some of the legacy devices (Serial, Parallel, ISA, PS/2 keyboard and mouse) and stick with USB and Firewire instead. Etc.
#5 Apple would have to find a way to run OSX only on Apple brand X86 Macs, not Dells and Compaqs and Gateways. Otherwise why bother making a X86 machine when you lose sales to those who can make them cheaper and sloppier? It is the Fast Food problem.
#6 It would tick off Mac Users who already bought the PowerPC based Macs. What is in it for them if a X86 Mac comes out?
#7 Microsoft would have Apple under its thumb more, to license Windows to Apple to run as a dual-boot on the X86 Mac machines. Who really wants to run Windows on a Mac anyway?
From what information I have, Apple makes most of their profits from hardware sales. So, just wondering if you think Apple would be able to sell an X86 mac box for $1000.00 more than a dell box given that the dell box was almost identical to the mac box?</strong><hr></blockquote>
With one small difference, the Apple box will have the Apple logo on it. That alone is worth the extra $1000.00 isn't it? Most likely ships with OSX pre-loaded, and the Dell box is pre-loaded with Windows XYZ.
Ah but they should at least consider a different chip. If not an X86, then maybe a Sparc, Alpha, or ARM chip. Apple could take advantage of different systems and port OSX to many different popular platforms because the base of OSX is BSD Unix, which is portable. Imagine if Apple made a deal with HP to run OSX on HP9000 systems instead of HPUX? It would be as big as IBM 390s running Linux.
<strong>Unfortunately for chip makers like Intel, grid and cluster architecture means that the fastest way to improve overall performance may not involve paying big money to buy the next generation of Itanium 2 CPUs. The Xeon chip was new in 1998.
attr:newsforge</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do realize that this article is referring to the Pentium 4 Xeons, don't you? If you think that the Xeon is still based on the PIII I suggest you stop posting and embarrassing yourself.
#2 MacX86 systems would not be able to run PowerPC or 68K code. Even if the PowerPC code was emulated, it would be dog-slow.
#3 The Mac would lose the advantages of the PowerPC based Macs. As in lower power consumption, RISC based processing, etc.
#4 Apple would have to redesign the PC, maybe make a new ROM, improve Plug-N-Play (aka Plug-N-Pray), and remove some of the legacy devices (Serial, Parallel, ISA, PS/2 keyboard and mouse) and stick with USB and Firewire instead. Etc.
#5 Apple would have to find a way to run OSX only on Apple brand X86 Macs, not Dells and Compaqs and Gateways. Otherwise why bother making a X86 machine when you lose sales to those who can make them cheaper and sloppier? It is the Fast Food problem.
#6 It would tick off Mac Users who already bought the PowerPC based Macs. What is in it for them if a X86 Mac comes out?
#7 Microsoft would have Apple under its thumb more, to license Windows to Apple to run as a dual-boot on the X86 Mac machines. Who really wants to run Windows on a Mac anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some thoughts on your points:
1. If Apple's x86 machines sold well, this would not be important.
2. Apple would most likely go with x86-64. By the time they released their machines the Hammer would clock around 3GHz. I am not a high level programmer but I think Apple programmers would be able to get the Hammer to emulate a PowerPC at 10% to 20% of its clock speed, meaning it would be able to emulate a 300MHz to 600MHz PPC. This would be enough for basic PowerPC emulation.
3. x86 can be low power, like Via's C3 or the Speedstep P4 or Mobile Athlon. Low-power consumption is not pursued like it is with the PowerPC because x86 is not focused on integrated platforms like the PowerPC really is. Also, the fact that the PowerPC is RISC based is not a virtue in and of itself, and can not be claimed as a benefit without a deeper explanation.
4. I will address the ROM issue in point 5, but the old idea that plug and play does not work on PCs is flat out fud. I have never had a USB device, a PCI card, or a Parallel port printer fail to be recognized and installed easily in all the years I have had PCs. As I have stated many times, I have both Macs and PCs yet I appreciate the way Windows will inform you a new device has been installed and will attempt to locate drivers for it. Even better, if your device was made in 2001 or before, the drivers will most likely be included in XP. About the removal of legacy ports, this has already been done to some extent on most PCs. I do not think you can get any new PC or motherboard that has ISA slots, and for total legacy removal, check out Abit?s new AT7 Max series.
5. Instead of using a PC?s standard bios, Apple could continue to use Open Firmware. This would enable them to build machines that would continue to have nice features such as OS level bootable drive selection, key commands at startup such as CD boot, Firewire disk mode, etc. Also, this would prevent any average user from being able to boot OS X on their standard PC.
You do realize that this article is referring to the Pentium 4 Xeons, don't you? If you think that the Xeon is still based on the PIII I suggest you stop posting and embarrassing yourself. <hr></blockquote>
you've missed the point entirely.
grid and cluster architecture is just one of numerous ways of looking at this problem from a bit of a diferent angle.
rather than picking the peanuts out of the sh!t
with numbers comparisons and wild fantasies
about making 3rd party applications producers
re-write their programs yet again to service
5% of the computing market in the next 12 months-
maybe the head needs to be pulled completely out of the ass
to look around at the big picture:
-grid and cluster / smp possibilities
-licensing and outsourcing of fabrication of PPC/altivec
-applying some actual business accumen to force Motorolla to do what they are supposed to do.
to get Motorolla to stop Bitch slapping us around and nurse this PPC through to when the whole world switches to 64bit, Apple needs a wedge. And right now they don't have one.
i don't think you can see the forest for the trees;
to get Motorolla to stop Bitch slapping us around and nurse this PPC through to when the whole world switches to 64bit, Apple needs a wedge. And right now they don't have one.
i don't think you can see the forest for the trees;
right now this is more a business thing -
than a technology thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One thing for sure, being locked into the PowerPC and having to depend on Motorola really limits Apple. If Motorola has another shortage, then the new Macs are delayed again. Intel and AMD chips are in large supplies and hardly ever have a shortage. But if AMD can be used to make PowerPC chips, then Apple gains yet another valueable resource.
Comments
Barto
<strong>
decent... decent?.. From the man who coined the phrase "Insanely Great", decent sounds like "poor".
MSKR
If the stories about how he reacted to the great magahertz drought of 1999" (Moto stuck at 500 forever) have any truth to them, I think his concept of decent may be better then ours.
"grid and cluster server technology"
One recent article concerned the monster Linux cluster system being constructed for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. When complete, the cluster will combine 1,920 Xeon CPUs into a system capable of generating 9.2 trillion calculations a second. Unfortunately for chip makers like Intel, grid and cluster architecture means that the fastest way to improve overall performance may not involve paying big money to buy the next generation of Itanium 2 CPUs. The Xeon chip was new in 1998.
attr:newsforge
<strong>
First of all calling C a high level language is an interesting statement. C is one of the most high performing languages above Assembler code becuase it is so LOW level. I mean yeah it's easier to do more complicated stuff than Basic, Fortran, Cobal, or any of the others, but it's not high level.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
C shure IS a high level languge AFAIK. Any language that is independent of the hardware's instruction-set is considered to be, according to every thing I've ever read. That pretty much amounts to everything above assembler. I'm not really a programmer though, so everything I've read might be wrong, though it would surprise me. Any book on the history of computing will refer to C as high level.
peace!
Firing Squad.com
Er. AMD are going to have to be careful. Intel do have deep pockets. They can sit this one out and watch AMD bleed to death.
Will Apple base their cpu roadmap on a company losing this amount of money? Motorola already are losing more than this.
However...would you move from one crisis company losing money to another?
Apple may be able to help them with their margins though... Especially in the Server space they just entered...hmmm.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>"ZDNet has the bad news that AMD is still hemorrhaging money at an alarming rate. Losses this quarter are $184.9 Million, compared to a profit of $17.4 million last year. Their revenue dropped from $985 million to $600 million, a very steep decrease. Analysts have urged AMD to introduce new chips at a higher margin and price-point in order to shore up the bottom line, but so far AMD isn't heeding the advice. Analysts speculate that in order to survive, AMD will have to find higher ground so that their chips are still less expensive than Intel but have a higher margin than they currently do. AMD will have to stop waging such a severe price-war, because unless it improves product margins, it cannot compete with the deep pockets of Intel, who currently has the fastest real-world performance in the desktop CPU market. Analysts seem to think that AMD customers would still be willing to buy AMD chips even at higher prices, provided they still offer fair value."
Firing Squad.com
Er. AMD are going to have to be careful. Intel do have deep pockets. They can sit this one out and watch AMD bleed to death.
Will Apple base their cpu roadmap on a company losing this amount of money? Motorola already are losing more than this.
However...would you move from one crisis company losing money to another?
Apple may be able to help them with their margins though... Especially in the Server space they just entered...hmmm.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
AMD has a really good opportunity with the X86-64 (Hammer) technology. It offers 64 bit power with true 32 bit compatibility. Intel has nothing that can compete at this point. MS has already confirmed they will be supporting this new architecture, so has the Linux community.
If this is successful, it will take intel a while to catch up. AMD needs to price these parts realistically, not at the firesale prices they sell the current Athlons at.
What I would REALLY like to see is a proprietary form of the X86-64 that Apple could use to replace the G series. It would take a modification of the OS, but not as much as many believe since BSD is extremely portable. However, all the apps would have to be redone to be workable on the platform. This would be even more disruptive than the switch to OS X in the first place.
The long term benefit to Apple would be that they have a company that innovates as their main supplier. AMD has legions of Athlon fanboys that would sing the praises of such a move. In the X86 enthusiast world, intel is second only to Microsoft in the sheer badwill they have generated. I know, I'm one of them. Enthusiasts have a lot of power in determining the direction of the market since they are influential to their friends, family, and the companies they work for.
Apple seems to discount the fanboy types, but I think they do this to their detriment. These guys have a lot of power.
The benefit to AMD would be that there would be a guaranteed market for at least a portion of their chips, chips they could sell at a bit of a premium and not be undersold by the grey market like happens currently.
If I can be bothered I will rewrite it later today otherwise you can all just wonder about what wonderful things I had to say <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>The long term benefit to Apple would be that they have a company that innovates as their main supplier. </strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM already makes PowerPCs, they are extremely innovative, they aren't hemoragging badly, and Apple has an existing relationship with them. If IBM & Apple produced machines based on a new leading edge PowerPC, they'd have an enormous group of "fanboys" around them faster than you could blink -- "fanboys", at least the ones worth their salt, go where the cool stuff is.
<strong>
IBM already makes PowerPCs, they are extremely innovative, they aren't hemoragging badly, and Apple has an existing relationship with them. If IBM & Apple produced machines based on a new leading edge PowerPC, they'd have an enormous group of "fanboys" around them faster than you could blink -- "fanboys", at least the ones worth their salt, go where the cool stuff is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
IBM is the most relevant alternative chip supplier for the next generation of powermac.
#1 It would take sales away from the PowerMacs.
#2 MacX86 systems would not be able to run PowerPC or 68K code. Even if the PowerPC code was emulated, it would be dog-slow.
#3 The Mac would lose the advantages of the PowerPC based Macs. As in lower power consumption, RISC based processing, etc.
#4 Apple would have to redesign the PC, maybe make a new ROM, improve Plug-N-Play (aka Plug-N-Pray), and remove some of the legacy devices (Serial, Parallel, ISA, PS/2 keyboard and mouse) and stick with USB and Firewire instead. Etc.
#5 Apple would have to find a way to run OSX only on Apple brand X86 Macs, not Dells and Compaqs and Gateways. Otherwise why bother making a X86 machine when you lose sales to those who can make them cheaper and sloppier? It is the Fast Food problem.
#6 It would tick off Mac Users who already bought the PowerPC based Macs. What is in it for them if a X86 Mac comes out?
#7 Microsoft would have Apple under its thumb more, to license Windows to Apple to run as a dual-boot on the X86 Mac machines. Who really wants to run Windows on a Mac anyway?
<a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/analyst_meeting_q302/"; target="_blank">http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/analyst_meeting_q302/</a>;
one-hour audio stream
<strong>
From what information I have, Apple makes most of their profits from hardware sales. So, just wondering if you think Apple would be able to sell an X86 mac box for $1000.00 more than a dell box given that the dell box was almost identical to the mac box?</strong><hr></blockquote>
With one small difference, the Apple box will have the Apple logo on it. That alone is worth the extra $1000.00 isn't it? Most likely ships with OSX pre-loaded, and the Dell box is pre-loaded with Windows XYZ.
<strong>Unfortunately for chip makers like Intel, grid and cluster architecture means that the fastest way to improve overall performance may not involve paying big money to buy the next generation of Itanium 2 CPUs. The Xeon chip was new in 1998.
attr:newsforge</strong><hr></blockquote>
You do realize that this article is referring to the Pentium 4 Xeons, don't you? If you think that the Xeon is still based on the PIII I suggest you stop posting and embarrassing yourself.
<strong>Well at least consider the possibility that OSX could be ported to the X86 platform. But Apple wouldn't do it for several reasons:
#1 It would take sales away from the PowerMacs.
#2 MacX86 systems would not be able to run PowerPC or 68K code. Even if the PowerPC code was emulated, it would be dog-slow.
#3 The Mac would lose the advantages of the PowerPC based Macs. As in lower power consumption, RISC based processing, etc.
#4 Apple would have to redesign the PC, maybe make a new ROM, improve Plug-N-Play (aka Plug-N-Pray), and remove some of the legacy devices (Serial, Parallel, ISA, PS/2 keyboard and mouse) and stick with USB and Firewire instead. Etc.
#5 Apple would have to find a way to run OSX only on Apple brand X86 Macs, not Dells and Compaqs and Gateways. Otherwise why bother making a X86 machine when you lose sales to those who can make them cheaper and sloppier? It is the Fast Food problem.
#6 It would tick off Mac Users who already bought the PowerPC based Macs. What is in it for them if a X86 Mac comes out?
#7 Microsoft would have Apple under its thumb more, to license Windows to Apple to run as a dual-boot on the X86 Mac machines. Who really wants to run Windows on a Mac anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Some thoughts on your points:
1. If Apple's x86 machines sold well, this would not be important.
2. Apple would most likely go with x86-64. By the time they released their machines the Hammer would clock around 3GHz. I am not a high level programmer but I think Apple programmers would be able to get the Hammer to emulate a PowerPC at 10% to 20% of its clock speed, meaning it would be able to emulate a 300MHz to 600MHz PPC. This would be enough for basic PowerPC emulation.
3. x86 can be low power, like Via's C3 or the Speedstep P4 or Mobile Athlon. Low-power consumption is not pursued like it is with the PowerPC because x86 is not focused on integrated platforms like the PowerPC really is. Also, the fact that the PowerPC is RISC based is not a virtue in and of itself, and can not be claimed as a benefit without a deeper explanation.
4. I will address the ROM issue in point 5, but the old idea that plug and play does not work on PCs is flat out fud. I have never had a USB device, a PCI card, or a Parallel port printer fail to be recognized and installed easily in all the years I have had PCs. As I have stated many times, I have both Macs and PCs yet I appreciate the way Windows will inform you a new device has been installed and will attempt to locate drivers for it. Even better, if your device was made in 2001 or before, the drivers will most likely be included in XP. About the removal of legacy ports, this has already been done to some extent on most PCs. I do not think you can get any new PC or motherboard that has ISA slots, and for total legacy removal, check out Abit?s new AT7 Max series.
5. Instead of using a PC?s standard bios, Apple could continue to use Open Firmware. This would enable them to build machines that would continue to have nice features such as OS level bootable drive selection, key commands at startup such as CD boot, Firewire disk mode, etc. Also, this would prevent any average user from being able to boot OS X on their standard PC.
<a href="http://www.firmworks.com/www/ofw.htm"; target="_blank">Open Firmware Info</a>
6. New and faster Macs.
7. Dual boot is a dumb idea, just get 2 computers.
You do realize that this article is referring to the Pentium 4 Xeons, don't you? If you think that the Xeon is still based on the PIII I suggest you stop posting and embarrassing yourself. <hr></blockquote>
you've missed the point entirely.
grid and cluster architecture is just one of numerous ways of looking at this problem from a bit of a diferent angle.
rather than picking the peanuts out of the sh!t
with numbers comparisons and wild fantasies
about making 3rd party applications producers
re-write their programs yet again to service
5% of the computing market in the next 12 months-
maybe the head needs to be pulled completely out of the ass
to look around at the big picture:
-grid and cluster / smp possibilities
-licensing and outsourcing of fabrication of PPC/altivec
-applying some actual business accumen to force Motorolla to do what they are supposed to do.
to get Motorolla to stop Bitch slapping us around and nurse this PPC through to when the whole world switches to 64bit, Apple needs a wedge. And right now they don't have one.
i don't think you can see the forest for the trees;
right now this is more a business thing -
than a technology thing.
<strong>
to get Motorolla to stop Bitch slapping us around and nurse this PPC through to when the whole world switches to 64bit, Apple needs a wedge. And right now they don't have one.
i don't think you can see the forest for the trees;
right now this is more a business thing -
than a technology thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
One thing for sure, being locked into the PowerPC and having to depend on Motorola really limits Apple. If Motorola has another shortage, then the new Macs are delayed again. Intel and AMD chips are in large supplies and hardly ever have a shortage. But if AMD can be used to make PowerPC chips, then Apple gains yet another valueable resource.
<strong>
With one small difference, the Apple box will have the Apple logo on it. That alone is worth the extra $1000.00 isn't it? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, for people who either have money to blow or for people who have blown their mind on drugs.