All you diehard Apple fans rejoice now!

meh, i'm an AMD user right now but i have allegance to nobody. I'll get the fast and best priced processor i can afford when i get a new computer, whether it is intel, IBM or AMD. If AMD is driven out completely, the price of cpu's may go up since intel would be teh only major player, that may slow RandD as well.
 
minofifa said:
meh, i'm an AMD user right now but i have allegance to nobody. I'll get the fast and best priced processor i can afford when i get a new computer, whether it is intel, IBM or AMD. If AMD is driven out completely, the price of cpu's may go up since intel would be teh only major player, that may slow RandD as well.
Click to expand...
I'd say this may shake a few things up in Redmond, which then will have repurcussions throughout the computing landscape. Intel and Microsoft haven't really got along so good for a while (Microsoft basically forced Intel's hand into adopting AMD's 64 bit extensions), so Intel getting all cozy with Apple might spur Microsoft into being more friendly with AMD.
 
hmmm interesting, never thought of that. like i said, though, in 3 or 4 years when i'm ready to upgrade again (i just upgraded) i'll look for thebest beal, whether it be microsof or apple, intel or AMD and get what suites me best. its good to be the consumer and let companies try to win you over.
 
Why have so many people assumed that since Apple is going to have Intel make their chips that they will be x86 based at all? From what i read Apple wanted to start having several classes of processors made for them and IBM didn't want to do it because of the low quantity of the runs. Intel said they would so Apple is making the move. I don't see Apple moving to the x86 format, but PPC is just about to make a big change as well. According to Apple, software is all going to have to be recoded. It sounds to me like Apple wants to be able to produce some lower cost systems so they can get some sales since their numbers are so low. Intel still has 80% of the market so its almost a no brainer to go with them even though AMD is the true processor innovator here (at least in my opinion). Apple needs some way to gain a higher market share or it won't matter how good any of their stuff is if they are out of business and can't manufacture and sell it. Money wise, I think this is a great move for Apple. However, i see the days of the rock solid mac's dissapearing. By adding more options they are making it harder for manufacturers to do proper R&D and testing which is going to start bringing up more an more compatibility problems. Thats the big problem with PC's nowadays. It really isn't Windows. It's the fact that there are several different chipsets and literally thousands of brands of different hardware you can put into your tower. That kind of availability really opens a lot of conflict possibilities. On the good side though, it keeps cost down.
 
xstatic said:
Why have so many people assumed that since Apple is going to have Intel make their chips that they will be x86 based at all? From what i read Apple wanted to start having several classes of processors made for them and IBM didn't want to do it because of the low quantity of the runs. Intel said they would so Apple is making the move. I don't see Apple moving to the x86 format, but PPC is just about to make a big change as well. According to Apple, software is all going to have to be recoded. It sounds to me like Apple wants to be able to produce some lower cost systems so they can get some sales since their numbers are so low. Intel still has 80% of the market so its almost a no brainer to go with them even though AMD is the true processor innovator here (at least in my opinion). Apple needs some way to gain a higher market share or it won't matter how good any of their stuff is if they are out of business and can't manufacture and sell it. Money wise, I think this is a great move for Apple. However, i see the days of the rock solid mac's dissapearing. By adding more options they are making it harder for manufacturers to do proper R&D and testing which is going to start bringing up more an more compatibility problems. Thats the big problem with PC's nowadays. It really isn't Windows. It's the fact that there are several different chipsets and literally thousands of brands of different hardware you can put into your tower. That kind of availability really opens a lot of conflict possibilities. On the good side though, it keeps cost down.
Click to expand...

We *know* that it will be based on x86. It was announced today!

http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2438&p=3
 
xstatic said:
From what i read Apple wanted to start having several classes of processors made for them and IBM didn't want to do it because of the low quantity of the runs.
Click to expand...
Where did you read this? Because it's obviously wrong.
 
elevate said:
Perhaps because, as a business decision, it makes more sense to choose the biggest processor company.
Click to expand...

It also makes sense to go with the company that does the whole deal, i.e. chip, chipset, motherboard.

AMD is great (I am a huge fan) but there are so many variables such as chipset and mobo that dont fall in line with Apple tradition the way Intel does.
 
I think I've said this, but if Apple survives the transition, I'd be really happy with a dual-core 2Ghz+ PowerBook. That'd be sweet!
 
t also makes sense to go with the company that does the whole deal, i.e. chip, chipset, motherboard.
Click to expand...

There's no reason why Apple can't make the OS compatible with both Intel & AMD. Actually, they'd have to go out of there way to make it not so. There are also advantages to not being reliant on a single supplier.
 
I got my info from MSN news, yahoo news, and CNN. Maybe my info is wrong. However, I tend to trust what I read and hear there more than what I do here (that was not aimed at any individual, just a fact of life for me:) )
 
elevate said:
I'd say this may shake a few things up in Redmond, which then will have repurcussions throughout the computing landscape. Intel and Microsoft haven't really got along so good for a while (Microsoft basically forced Intel's hand into adopting AMD's 64 bit extensions), so Intel getting all cozy with Apple might spur Microsoft into being more friendly with AMD.
Click to expand...

Looks like they're already teaming up.

http://cs.silverpop.com/amd/tech_tour/2005/registration_site1.htm
 
so Intel getting all cozy with Apple might spur Microsoft into being more friendly with AMD.
Click to expand...

I hope not! If AMD is going over to the dark side, then what is left to hold the bastions? OS/2?
 
bdemenil said:
There's no reason why Apple can't make the OS compatible with both Intel & AMD. Actually, they'd have to go out of there way to make it not so. There are also advantages to not being reliant on a single supplier.
Click to expand...

Part of the blessing and curse of Windows is that you can get an AMD or Intel, multiple different chipsets to match that up with, countless graphics cards and motherboard choices, etc.

Apple has controlled their hardware, therefore has controlled the "experience" and reliability of "things just working".

Sure, we've all settled on formulas that work great, and have stuck with them. In a small way we've all done what Apple wants to do for you; stick with a certain set of suppliers and designs. I use AMD with Asus motherboards, ATI graphics, KT series chipsets, and Crucial memory. It works, always. And I doubt seriously that I'll deviate from that formula, unless one or more ingredient starts sucking.

This is what Apple has been doing and will continue to do on a much much larger scale.
 
If Apple ever gets its head out of its ass and ports OSX to universally run on generic Intel/AMD equipment for a competitive price--ie as a real alternative to Windows--I will happily return to the Mac fold. As it is, Apple's priced itself out of my range, and I'm just plain sick of their top-down, control-freak proprietary approach to hardware and software. I just built what promises to be a very nice AthlonXP system for about $600 because I can't afford an effin' G5 Mac to run Apple's fabulous OS, and anymore in my eyes Windows XP is very nearly as fabulous.

This coming from a 15-year Mac zealot.

cheers

Billy S.
 
Listen, Apple doesn't want to be your typical generic PC manufacturer. There's already hundreds of those out there. Just LOOK at a G5, iPod, or Powerbook and compare it to their Gateway, Dell, or HP counterparts. Do you see Porsche dropping their price to $8,000 so everybody can afford one? I don't think so...

"I want to put a ding in the universe." --Steve Jobs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top