1. If Apple was willing to switch to DVI, they're willing to look at Intel. They've seen the pros of conforming to standards and may now be looking to gain these benefits on a larger scale. They realized they can still innovate and be standardized with the rest of the computing world at the same time.
2. Don't underestimate the grudge Steve carries about the 3GHz comment - no - let's call it what it was - A PROMISE. I guarantee he did not make that statement lightly and all but had IBM sign off on it in blood. Combine this public humiliation (and let's realize that's what it was) with the fact that there still is no Mac over 2.7GHz, and even that has to be buried under 200 feet of Artic pack ice to keep it from blowing up like an Iraqi car bomb. I will lose respect for Steve (as will his employees and stockholders) if this IBM-still-under-3GHz-thing continues much longer. Don't think that the announcement of the XBox specs didn't grind some salt into the wound, even if they're not the same type of PPC that could drive a Mac.
If you're joking, that's fine. But otherwise you're going too far with that grudge thing.
The whole industry was sideswiped with the 90nm problems. Not just IBM.
Intel promised that the Prescott would scale "way beyond 5Ghz". It ended at 3.82Ghz.
In fact, they had to abandon their entire future line-up.
If Apple had used the Prescott, what would Jobs be thinking now, after having "promised" "beyond 5Ghz in a year"?
I am a fairly large stockholder, and I'm not concerned about Apple sticking with the PPC.
Why don't we wait at least until the dev conf to see if anything interesting happens?
I think that the most likely explanation for this is that Apple wants an embedded ARM processor, or else they're playing chess with IBM, or maybe both (leak enough of the ARM processor negotiations to make IBM worry that maybe they're looking for a desktop CPU from Intel...) However, off in the land of open-ended speculation: A few bits of historical trivia struck me when I read this rumor.
First, Intel has been trying to kill x86 for a very, very, long time. In fact, the project that became IA-64 was started in 1994—the same year that the PowerPC was launched. Intel tried to launch a RISC platform in the intervening years, but no-one bought it. Intel has been shackled to x86 by legacy, and in particular by Microsoft legacy.
It came out in the MS antitrust trial that Intel and MS did not get along, and their cooperation was more a matter of mutual interdependence than anything else. But Intel was the more dependent partner, as Gates never failed to remind them. This, to me, is a particularly important datum. Why? Because MS just stiffed Intel on XBox2. Make no mistake: That was a big "fuck you" to x86 and to the x86 legacy, and it's the real beginning of the closed personal computing platform that Ballmer telegraphed to the press in the PR surrounding the original XBox. It can also be seen as a big "fuck you" to Intel, but with the silver lining that with MS moving away from x86—even to the incomplete extent that they will—Intel can also, finally, start moving away from x86 (but not toward Itanic, which just needs to be written off as a failure that cost tens of billions of dollars, and fabbed occasionally for HP, until that company implodes—but I digress). They just need clients. So of course they'd be talking to Apple. They [edit: Apple] might not be a big fish, but they're getting bigger, and they aren't wed to the x86 legacy, nor to commodity hardware.
I want to emphasize that this is blue sky stuff. But even if I've hit the target shooting blind, and even if Intel manages to convince Steve, I don't think we'll see anything for years. They could be shopping a reasonably fleshed-out concept, or they could be testing the waters to see if it's even worth pulling out a clean sheet of paper. Or, more likely, they're looking at the market, looking at the increasing dominance of modular designs, and shopping (the beginnings of) a next-generation modular, multi-core architecture. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity to start fresh, they could come up with something good.
I think that the most likely explanation for this is that Apple wants an embedded ARM processor, or else they're playing chess with IBM, or maybe both (leak enough of the ARM processor negotiations to make IBM worry that maybe they're looking for a desktop CPU from Intel...) However, off in the land of open-ended speculation: A few bits of historical trivia struck me when I read this rumor.
First, Intel has been trying to kill x86 for a very, very, long time. In fact, the project that became IA-64 was started in 1994—the same year that the PowerPC was launched. Intel tried to launch a RISC platform in the intervening years, but no-one bought it. Intel has been shackled to x86 by legacy, and in particular by Microsoft legacy.
It came out in the MS antitrust trial that Intel and MS did not get along, and their cooperation was more a matter of mutual interdependence than anything else. But Intel was the more dependent partner, as Gates never failed to remind them. This, to me, is a particularly important datum. Why? Because MS just stiffed Intel on XBox2. Make no mistake: That was a big "fuck you" to x86 and to the x86 legacy, and it's the real beginning of the closed personal computing platform that Ballmer telegraphed to the press in the PR surrounding the original XBox. It can also be seen as a big "fuck you" to Intel, but with the silver lining that with MS moving away from x86—even to the incomplete extent that they will—Intel can also, finally, start moving away from x86 (but not toward Itanic, which just needs to be written off as a failure that cost tens of billions of dollars, and fabbed occasionally for HP, until that company implodes—but I digress). They just need clients. So of course they'd be talking to Apple. They might not be a big fish, but they're getting bigger, and they aren't wed to the x86 legacy, nor to commodity hardware.
I want to emphasize that this is blue sky stuff. But even if I've hit the target shooting blind, and even if Intel manages to convince Steve, I don't think we'll see anything for years. They could be shopping a reasonably fleshed-out concept, or they could be testing the waters to see if it's even worth pulling out a clean sheet of paper. Or, more likely, they're looking at the market, looking at the increasing dominance of modular designs, and shopping (the beginnings of) a next-generation modular, multi-core architecture. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity to start fresh, they could come up with something good.
The only thing about this that *could* make any sense is that Intel has got, or is waiting to produce a processor that is multi-OS compatible. They announced this technology a while back, if anyone here remembers.
When asked if Apple's OS would run on it, they said yes, it would. I am sure that they meant the current PPC version, at least that's how Intel was describing the technology. I forgot what they called it, but it was virtualization, though in hardware. Supposedly there was little if any loss in performance.
IBM has this technology as well, but I'n not certain as to how advanced it is.
*IF* this chip could allow OS X to run without a conversion, then perhaps PPC software would run as well. If the chip is fast, and works well, this could be a solution.
But who knows at this point in time whether it's an actual product? Perhaps that's what the article was referring to.
Yes, that point above is right. I've read somewhere about Intel's virtualization technology which can allow processors to run multiple OS's simultaneously. You could use OS X for your day-to-day stuff and then flip to Windows to relax with a game.
Plus it has been said that Intel/Apple already have OS X running on x86 hardware in their research labs.
If you're joking, that's fine. But otherwise you're going too far with that grudge thing.
The whole industry was sideswiped with the 90nm problems. Not just IBM.
Intel promised that the Prescott would scale "way beyond 5Ghz". It ended at 3.82Ghz.
In fact, they had to abandon their entire future line-up.
If Apple had used the Prescott, what would Jobs be thinking now, after having "promised" "beyond 5Ghz in a year"?
I am a fairly large stockholder, and I'm not concerned about Apple sticking with the PPC.
Why don't we wait at least until the dev conf to see if anything interesting happens?
No, not kidding. You may be right. I may be wrong. I'm probably wrong. I just think people here have a bad case of "group think" on this. Sure, there's been a lot of "cry wolf" on this topic in the past; that just doesn't mean the Wolf won't come to visit this time.
No, not kidding. You may be right. I may be wrong. I'm probably wrong. I just think people here have a bad case of "group think" on this. Sure, there's been a lot of "cry wolf" on this topic in the past; that just doesn't mean the Wolf won't come to visit this time.
It's not just group-think.
Unless Intel has the virtualization cpu out, it makes little sense.
The only thing about this that *could* make any sense is that Intel has got, or is waiting to produce a processor that is multi-OS compatible. They announced this technology a while back, if anyone here remembers.
When asked if Apple's OS would run on it, they said yes, it would. I am sure that they meant the current PPC version, at least that's how Intel was describing the technology. I forgot what they called it, but it was virtualization, though in hardware. Supposedly there was little if any loss in performance.
Yes, I do remember this, and it fits into my hypothetical puzzle pretty nicely.
After all, virtualization is just another way to adapt hardware for customers.
Quote:
But who knows at this point in time whether it's an actual product? Perhaps that's what the article was referring to.
I don't believe that it is, but it really doesn't matter whether it is. Intel has wanted to move away from x86 for years. They've wanted some leverage against MS for years. These two wants are closely related. If this technology is the lever they have to move away from absolute dependence on MS and x86, it would only make sense that they'd talk to potential customers as soon as is practicable. Certainly, they'd open talks long before they'd committed all the R&D necessary to produce a shipping product.
WHY WHY WHY would Apple go with Intel x86????? There are so many disadvantages to x86 over what Apple has written for PPC and Intel's x86 is not as powerful as AMD's x86.
Easy. Supply, supply, supply. Intel can figure out how to manufacture, in quantity, their chips. IBM still has issues. Plus there's probably the concern over IBM treating Apple as just a customer, where they don't get priority over larger requests from other vendors (say xBox or IBM itself). Intel might not give them 'priority', but if they're using the standard intel CPUs, then you know there's a slew in the pipeline, not waiting 3 weeks for a box of 1000.
And I've been hearing about the so-called disadvantages of Intel chips for years, yet they still seem to be in the most computers. Seems odd, being such a piece of crap and all. Hey, and Windows is a POS to, and yet look how many use that. Its not all about how 'great' something is over something else, you know.
Easy. Supply, supply, supply. Intel can figure out how to manufacture, in quantity, their chips. IBM still has issues. Plus there's probably the concern over IBM treating Apple as just a customer, where they don't get priority over larger requests from other vendors (say xBox or IBM itself). Intel might not give them 'priority', but if they're using the standard intel CPUs, then you know there's a slew in the pipeline, not waiting 3 weeks for a box of 1000.
And I've been hearing about the so-called disadvantages of Intel chips for years, yet they still seem to be in the most computers. Seems odd, being such a piece of crap and all. Hey, and Windows is a POS to, and yet look how many use that. Its not all about how 'great' something is over something else, you know.
Sure. There is an understanding in the industry that IBM's R&D is #1, but Intel's productions facilities are #1.
1) Intel chips can be used for any number of things besides the CPU. There are many many chips in a computer.
2) "IBM - Wake TF Up. We need our chips"
3) In this whole thing, where is Freescale? As that Forbes article mentions, when people start the Apple on x86 rumors, it means Apple is coming out with a new computer, and often a new CPU. I would put my money on Freescale coming up with a dual core G4 for the mobile line. Maybe even with some 64 Bit portions to it. iBooks will go to 1.5 ghz single core G4, while the powerbooks will get to 1.8 or 2 ghz dual core G4.
4) Chip plants - who says Intel has to manufacture Intel chips at their Fabs? Maybe it's just a supply issue. Maybe Intel will be running G5's on the Fabs? Maybe Freescale will be running G5s on their fabs?
5) Most likely - this is a iPod video chip, some bridge chip, or something totally unrelated to the CPU itself.
Might not be that silly - Steve's done an endianness migration once before when NeXTStep 3 became NeXTStep for Intel, then OPENSTEP for HP/PA-RISC and OPENSTEP for Sparc. They know how to do it - they already have "Fat Binaries" in OS X.
They also already have the core of OS X (Darwin) running and available on x86 architectures. They would then just need to re-build the various libraries and kits. The biggest issue here would be things like CoreAudio and CoreVideo where they need speed and endian-ness and the lack of Altivec is a problem.
I was the OpenStep and NextStep PM for Sun at the time. We did the port to SPARC and Sun x86. The Cocoa libs and PDF were ported. Cocoa still has the remenents. Look at Foundation and App Kits...they still have NS prefix to them. NS is for NEXTSTEP.
Apple can do the port, the big/little endian stuff has been done.
My former Sun bosses without naming names are there at VP levels and are from Sun and directly worked on this. It can be done, not pretty but it can be done and could leverage existing codebase.
HELL NO, A THOUSAND TIMES HELL NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
My girlfreinds dell with the latest Intel gigagooglethousandmillion gee haw a hertz chip could double as a leaf blower in the fall.... and its new!
fans blowing all the time!!!!
and that chip 3.3 chip is not any faster or smoother than my Ibook 1.33mhz in fact it is much slower jerky and jittery..... and inaccurate, the day apple starts using CRAPTEL technology is the day They have turned to the darkside of the force and is also the day i switch to linux!!!!!!
this had better not be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I stand my mac ground Quality over quanitity.........................
I personally dont believe that there is any reason for Apple to go to Intel for their desktop and workstation computers... but there is still lots of reasons to talk with intel, perhaps they are interested in some of the power saving technologies in the Pentium M line or they could be interested in components for their X serves or X Serve Raids.
SJ used Intel when re tooling Pixar a couple of years ago, why couldn't the X Serve nodes run on x86 or other intel technology, especially if they would just be running a custom OS and focusing on crunching numbers.
Comments
Originally posted by inslider
1. If Apple was willing to switch to DVI, they're willing to look at Intel. They've seen the pros of conforming to standards and may now be looking to gain these benefits on a larger scale. They realized they can still innovate and be standardized with the rest of the computing world at the same time.
2. Don't underestimate the grudge Steve carries about the 3GHz comment - no - let's call it what it was - A PROMISE. I guarantee he did not make that statement lightly and all but had IBM sign off on it in blood. Combine this public humiliation (and let's realize that's what it was) with the fact that there still is no Mac over 2.7GHz, and even that has to be buried under 200 feet of Artic pack ice to keep it from blowing up like an Iraqi car bomb. I will lose respect for Steve (as will his employees and stockholders) if this IBM-still-under-3GHz-thing continues much longer. Don't think that the announcement of the XBox specs didn't grind some salt into the wound, even if they're not the same type of PPC that could drive a Mac.
If you're joking, that's fine. But otherwise you're going too far with that grudge thing.
The whole industry was sideswiped with the 90nm problems. Not just IBM.
Intel promised that the Prescott would scale "way beyond 5Ghz". It ended at 3.82Ghz.
In fact, they had to abandon their entire future line-up.
If Apple had used the Prescott, what would Jobs be thinking now, after having "promised" "beyond 5Ghz in a year"?
I am a fairly large stockholder, and I'm not concerned about Apple sticking with the PPC.
Why don't we wait at least until the dev conf to see if anything interesting happens?
Originally posted by webmail
Stop being such a drama queen.
Ouch! Someone just got served!
First, Intel has been trying to kill x86 for a very, very, long time. In fact, the project that became IA-64 was started in 1994—the same year that the PowerPC was launched. Intel tried to launch a RISC platform in the intervening years, but no-one bought it. Intel has been shackled to x86 by legacy, and in particular by Microsoft legacy.
It came out in the MS antitrust trial that Intel and MS did not get along, and their cooperation was more a matter of mutual interdependence than anything else. But Intel was the more dependent partner, as Gates never failed to remind them. This, to me, is a particularly important datum. Why? Because MS just stiffed Intel on XBox2. Make no mistake: That was a big "fuck you" to x86 and to the x86 legacy, and it's the real beginning of the closed personal computing platform that Ballmer telegraphed to the press in the PR surrounding the original XBox. It can also be seen as a big "fuck you" to Intel, but with the silver lining that with MS moving away from x86—even to the incomplete extent that they will—Intel can also, finally, start moving away from x86 (but not toward Itanic, which just needs to be written off as a failure that cost tens of billions of dollars, and fabbed occasionally for HP, until that company implodes—but I digress). They just need clients. So of course they'd be talking to Apple. They [edit: Apple] might not be a big fish, but they're getting bigger, and they aren't wed to the x86 legacy, nor to commodity hardware.
I want to emphasize that this is blue sky stuff. But even if I've hit the target shooting blind, and even if Intel manages to convince Steve, I don't think we'll see anything for years. They could be shopping a reasonably fleshed-out concept, or they could be testing the waters to see if it's even worth pulling out a clean sheet of paper. Or, more likely, they're looking at the market, looking at the increasing dominance of modular designs, and shopping (the beginnings of) a next-generation modular, multi-core architecture. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity to start fresh, they could come up with something good.
Originally posted by Amorph
I think that the most likely explanation for this is that Apple wants an embedded ARM processor, or else they're playing chess with IBM, or maybe both (leak enough of the ARM processor negotiations to make IBM worry that maybe they're looking for a desktop CPU from Intel...) However, off in the land of open-ended speculation: A few bits of historical trivia struck me when I read this rumor.
First, Intel has been trying to kill x86 for a very, very, long time. In fact, the project that became IA-64 was started in 1994—the same year that the PowerPC was launched. Intel tried to launch a RISC platform in the intervening years, but no-one bought it. Intel has been shackled to x86 by legacy, and in particular by Microsoft legacy.
It came out in the MS antitrust trial that Intel and MS did not get along, and their cooperation was more a matter of mutual interdependence than anything else. But Intel was the more dependent partner, as Gates never failed to remind them. This, to me, is a particularly important datum. Why? Because MS just stiffed Intel on XBox2. Make no mistake: That was a big "fuck you" to x86 and to the x86 legacy, and it's the real beginning of the closed personal computing platform that Ballmer telegraphed to the press in the PR surrounding the original XBox. It can also be seen as a big "fuck you" to Intel, but with the silver lining that with MS moving away from x86—even to the incomplete extent that they will—Intel can also, finally, start moving away from x86 (but not toward Itanic, which just needs to be written off as a failure that cost tens of billions of dollars, and fabbed occasionally for HP, until that company implodes—but I digress). They just need clients. So of course they'd be talking to Apple. They might not be a big fish, but they're getting bigger, and they aren't wed to the x86 legacy, nor to commodity hardware.
I want to emphasize that this is blue sky stuff. But even if I've hit the target shooting blind, and even if Intel manages to convince Steve, I don't think we'll see anything for years. They could be shopping a reasonably fleshed-out concept, or they could be testing the waters to see if it's even worth pulling out a clean sheet of paper. Or, more likely, they're looking at the market, looking at the increasing dominance of modular designs, and shopping (the beginnings of) a next-generation modular, multi-core architecture. I have no doubt that, given the opportunity to start fresh, they could come up with something good.
The only thing about this that *could* make any sense is that Intel has got, or is waiting to produce a processor that is multi-OS compatible. They announced this technology a while back, if anyone here remembers.
When asked if Apple's OS would run on it, they said yes, it would. I am sure that they meant the current PPC version, at least that's how Intel was describing the technology. I forgot what they called it, but it was virtualization, though in hardware. Supposedly there was little if any loss in performance.
IBM has this technology as well, but I'n not certain as to how advanced it is.
*IF* this chip could allow OS X to run without a conversion, then perhaps PPC software would run as well. If the chip is fast, and works well, this could be a solution.
But who knows at this point in time whether it's an actual product? Perhaps that's what the article was referring to.
Look at how seriously the market is taking this rumor:
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2048298.html
Plus it has been said that Intel/Apple already have OS X running on x86 hardware in their research labs.
Originally posted by melgross
If you're joking, that's fine. But otherwise you're going too far with that grudge thing.
The whole industry was sideswiped with the 90nm problems. Not just IBM.
Intel promised that the Prescott would scale "way beyond 5Ghz". It ended at 3.82Ghz.
In fact, they had to abandon their entire future line-up.
If Apple had used the Prescott, what would Jobs be thinking now, after having "promised" "beyond 5Ghz in a year"?
I am a fairly large stockholder, and I'm not concerned about Apple sticking with the PPC.
Why don't we wait at least until the dev conf to see if anything interesting happens?
No, not kidding. You may be right. I may be wrong. I'm probably wrong. I just think people here have a bad case of "group think" on this. Sure, there's been a lot of "cry wolf" on this topic in the past; that just doesn't mean the Wolf won't come to visit this time.
Originally posted by inslider
No, not kidding. You may be right. I may be wrong. I'm probably wrong. I just think people here have a bad case of "group think" on this. Sure, there's been a lot of "cry wolf" on this topic in the past; that just doesn't mean the Wolf won't come to visit this time.
It's not just group-think.
Unless Intel has the virtualization cpu out, it makes little sense.
Originally posted by melgross
The only thing about this that *could* make any sense is that Intel has got, or is waiting to produce a processor that is multi-OS compatible. They announced this technology a while back, if anyone here remembers.
When asked if Apple's OS would run on it, they said yes, it would. I am sure that they meant the current PPC version, at least that's how Intel was describing the technology. I forgot what they called it, but it was virtualization, though in hardware. Supposedly there was little if any loss in performance.
Yes, I do remember this, and it fits into my hypothetical puzzle pretty nicely.
After all, virtualization is just another way to adapt hardware for customers.
But who knows at this point in time whether it's an actual product? Perhaps that's what the article was referring to.
I don't believe that it is, but it really doesn't matter whether it is. Intel has wanted to move away from x86 for years. They've wanted some leverage against MS for years. These two wants are closely related. If this technology is the lever they have to move away from absolute dependence on MS and x86, it would only make sense that they'd talk to potential customers as soon as is practicable. Certainly, they'd open talks long before they'd committed all the R&D necessary to produce a shipping product.
I just hope they've learned from IA-64.
Originally posted by Yevgeny
WHY WHY WHY would Apple go with Intel x86????? There are so many disadvantages to x86 over what Apple has written for PPC and Intel's x86 is not as powerful as AMD's x86.
Easy. Supply, supply, supply. Intel can figure out how to manufacture, in quantity, their chips. IBM still has issues. Plus there's probably the concern over IBM treating Apple as just a customer, where they don't get priority over larger requests from other vendors (say xBox or IBM itself). Intel might not give them 'priority', but if they're using the standard intel CPUs, then you know there's a slew in the pipeline, not waiting 3 weeks for a box of 1000.
And I've been hearing about the so-called disadvantages of Intel chips for years, yet they still seem to be in the most computers. Seems odd, being such a piece of crap and all. Hey, and Windows is a POS to, and yet look how many use that. Its not all about how 'great' something is over something else, you know.
Originally posted by Louzer
Easy. Supply, supply, supply. Intel can figure out how to manufacture, in quantity, their chips. IBM still has issues. Plus there's probably the concern over IBM treating Apple as just a customer, where they don't get priority over larger requests from other vendors (say xBox or IBM itself). Intel might not give them 'priority', but if they're using the standard intel CPUs, then you know there's a slew in the pipeline, not waiting 3 weeks for a box of 1000.
And I've been hearing about the so-called disadvantages of Intel chips for years, yet they still seem to be in the most computers. Seems odd, being such a piece of crap and all. Hey, and Windows is a POS to, and yet look how many use that. Its not all about how 'great' something is over something else, you know.
Sure. There is an understanding in the industry that IBM's R&D is #1, but Intel's productions facilities are #1.
http://www.forbes.com/2005/05/23/cx_ah_0523apple.html
Originally posted by JLL
Originally posted by JLL
So he will switch to somone who promised (but didn't deliver) a 4GHz chip? [/B]
That would make more sense if the fastest P4 was at 2.6GHz.
2) "IBM - Wake TF Up. We need our chips"
3) In this whole thing, where is Freescale? As that Forbes article mentions, when people start the Apple on x86 rumors, it means Apple is coming out with a new computer, and often a new CPU. I would put my money on Freescale coming up with a dual core G4 for the mobile line. Maybe even with some 64 Bit portions to it. iBooks will go to 1.5 ghz single core G4, while the powerbooks will get to 1.8 or 2 ghz dual core G4.
4) Chip plants - who says Intel has to manufacture Intel chips at their Fabs? Maybe it's just a supply issue. Maybe Intel will be running G5's on the Fabs? Maybe Freescale will be running G5s on their fabs?
5) Most likely - this is a iPod video chip, some bridge chip, or something totally unrelated to the CPU itself.
Originally posted by kiwi-in-dc
Might not be that silly - Steve's done an endianness migration once before when NeXTStep 3 became NeXTStep for Intel, then OPENSTEP for HP/PA-RISC and OPENSTEP for Sparc. They know how to do it - they already have "Fat Binaries" in OS X.
They also already have the core of OS X (Darwin) running and available on x86 architectures. They would then just need to re-build the various libraries and kits. The biggest issue here would be things like CoreAudio and CoreVideo where they need speed and endian-ness and the lack of Altivec is a problem.
I was the OpenStep and NextStep PM for Sun at the time. We did the port to SPARC and Sun x86. The Cocoa libs and PDF were ported. Cocoa still has the remenents. Look at Foundation and App Kits...they still have NS prefix to them. NS is for NEXTSTEP.
Apple can do the port, the big/little endian stuff has been done.
My former Sun bosses without naming names are there at VP levels and are from Sun and directly worked on this. It can be done, not pretty but it can be done and could leverage existing codebase.
My girlfreinds dell with the latest Intel gigagooglethousandmillion gee haw a hertz chip could double as a leaf blower in the fall.... and its new!
fans blowing all the time!!!!
and that chip 3.3 chip is not any faster or smoother than my Ibook 1.33mhz in fact it is much slower jerky and jittery..... and inaccurate, the day apple starts using CRAPTEL technology is the day They have turned to the darkside of the force and is also the day i switch to linux!!!!!!
this had better not be true!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I stand my mac ground Quality over quanitity.........................
Which one of these does not belong?
Xbox moves from x86 to PowerPC.
Playstation moves from proprietary to PowerPC.
Gamecube goes from embedded PowerPC to PowerPC.
Apple goes from PowerPC to Intel.
SJ used Intel when re tooling Pixar a couple of years ago, why couldn't the X Serve nodes run on x86 or other intel technology, especially if they would just be running a custom OS and focusing on crunching numbers.