Apple and AMD (again)? [Archive]

SwitchMonkey

Apr 23, 2003, 11:20 AM

Oh boy, oh boy, here we go again with AMD...

You might also want to check out the news about IBM buying Opteron chips from AMD.

>

ADVANCED MICRO'S NEW CHIP TO BE USED BY I.B.M. Advanced Micro Devices Inc. said yesterday that its new Opteron chip would be used in some server computers made by I.B.M. Advanced Micro said at a conference in New York that it had started selling the Opteron, which digests data in chunks of either 32 bits or 64 bits. Opteron can run the roughly 100,000 programs already written for Intel-based chips as well as 64-bit applications for tougher tasks. While Intel's Xeon and Itanium chips do one or the other, Advanced Micro's chip can do both, making it more flexible, analysts and investors have said. Advanced Micro last week reported a wider first-quarter loss on a 21 percent revenue drop over the period a year ago. Its share of the microprocessor market dropped to 15 percent in 2002 from 22 percent in early 2001 as Intel outspent the company sixfold, building more efficient factories. The company declined to forecast sales or volume for Opteron. Shares of Advanced Micro rose 12 cents, to $8.44. They have gained 30 percent this year. I.B.M. shares rose $2.27, to $85.63. (Bloomberg News)

AhmedFaisal

Apr 23, 2003, 11:51 AM

I am sick and tired of it. AMD might contribute some controller chips here and there, same as VIA and others but the CPU no way!
I personally would refuse to buy an x86 Apple machine. I left this lousy architecture and I don't want to be forced back onto it!

Ahmed

ldjessee

Apr 23, 2003, 11:58 AM

Hello,

Does it matter what processor is powering the Mac?

I think not.

Also, rumors like this gives Apple some leverage when negotiating contracts for purchasing processors.

Always have a backup supplier.

So, if the deal with IBM goes south for 970 (ie, IBM wants too much for them), Apple can always switch to Opteron and keep going.

I think that was the whole reason they leaked last year that they have an x86 version of OSX.

NavyIntel007

Apr 23, 2003, 12:03 PM

Stop the insanity!!! NO AMD!!!

AMD's use more power and are much hotter than Intel processors that are much hotter than G4's (and supposedly the 970). So will the AMD fans put a cork in it for God's sake?

macktheknife

Apr 23, 2003, 12:12 PM

The article actually does a pretty good job point out why Apple might be talking to AMD to keep IBM and Motorola on their heels. The article itself cautioned against reading too much into this, but as an analysis piece, it points out why 64-bit computing might be essential for Apple in the not-so distant future.

Blackcat

Apr 23, 2003, 12:12 PM

AMD also fab chips and make WiFi chipsets, it might well be merely a new source of Airport hardware.

pgwalsh

Apr 23, 2003, 12:17 PM

Since they both work on HyperTransport and they both are using 32/64 bit chips maybe they're just compairing notes. If you think about it, both compaines are working with IBM, HyperTrasport, and 32/64bit chips.

This is an interesting read: http://www.arstechnica.com/cpu/1q00/g4vsk7/g4vsk7-1.html

It's old, but interesting and may give insight to why AMD run nearly as fast at PIV However, that's my own speculation.

maradong

Apr 23, 2003, 12:18 PM

i d prefer to see the 970, not an amd cpu.

kimble

Apr 23, 2003, 12:19 PM

I can't see Apple switching processors for their consumer machines but I could easily see them using different processors in the XServe line. These are headless machines and are much less dependent on the CPU. They may even be working on 64bit blade servers for all we know...

Chryx

Apr 23, 2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
Stop the insanity!!! NO AMD!!!

AMD's use more power and are much hotter than Intel processors that are much hotter than G4's (and supposedly the 970). So will the AMD fans put a cork in it for God's sake?

Actually, AMDs Opteron 64bit chips are pretty close to the PowerPC 970 in power consumption, ~40w @ 1.8Ghz

(Intel have the hottest running award at the moment, the 3.06Ghz P4 tops 100w peak)

John_DiMatteo

Apr 23, 2003, 01:18 PM

I saw a rather strange article in PC Mag concerning Apple using both Intel Itanium and PowerPC chips. Even though I thought the writer must have been out of his mind when he wrote the article, it is still interesting.

The article can be found here (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp).

(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp)

I am thinking that maybe Apple could use both AMD Opteron and IBM 970 and follow through a similar plan in the article.

Ah! This article's madness must be rubbing off on me!

acj

Apr 23, 2003, 01:19 PM

He's right about the power. Their new chips are cooler.

inkswamp

Apr 23, 2003, 01:22 PM

First off, the disclaimer: this is my pet theory, i.e., a total, wild, pulled-of-out-my-*ss speculation, okay. I have no inside info or contact with people who might know this, but here is my speculation of why this AMD thing keeps coming up despite the fact that the use of the IBM 970 is almost a certainty.

Put this AMD thing into a bigger context of recent events.

We've heard that 10.3 will include a more integrated Classic environment where Classic Mac OS apps will be given many of the benefits of Aqua.

Apple quietly releases their implementation of XWindows system, X11. Despite the fact that this news set Slashdot buzzing for days on end and probably should have had some mention from Steve Jobs in the keynote he'd given a few days prior, it was released very quietly. Interesting.

Next, the somewhat unexpected news that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC. What on earth could Microsoft want with VPC? We can speculate that they want greater control over emulation of Windows on the Mac, but that sounds weak. They still control the operating system that gets installed on VPC so from that perspective they've gained nothing by buying out VPC.

And then these weird, peristent, inexplicable rumors that Apple is in talks with AMD about something or other. Who knows what. It's very doubtful that it's about a chip that would replace the PPC since we've read many, many well-informed examinations of such a move and the technical hurdles would likely ruin Apple.

So what could all this possibly point to? Apple has given us a system that can basically run software from three different operating systems: the classic Mac OS, Mas OS X (the Next OS), and Unix. They recently brought the Unix world closer with the release of X11. Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware? Maybe it would give Mac users the ability to run Windows and PC software, not via software emulation, but with hardware assistance. Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.

Now does Microsoft buying VPC make sense? Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe MS Mac Business Unit caught wind of this and wants to one-up Apple somehow. Any thoughts?

AMD would be a likely partner is such a move since one could imagine the problems with Intel assisting Apple with this. If it was popular, Intel would be killing their own business. AMD, on the other hand, wouldn't, if I understand the situation correctly.

Anyway... like I said... wild speculation, but that's what all this says to me.

pgwalsh

Apr 23, 2003, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by John_DiMatteo
I saw a rather strange article in PC Mag concerning Apple using both Intel Itanium and PowerPC chips. Even though I thought the writer must have been out of his mind when he wrote the article, it is still interesting.

The article can be found here (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp).

(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp)

I am thinking that maybe Apple could use both AMD Opteron and IBM 970 and follow through a similar plan in the article.

Ah! This article's madness must be rubbing off on me! Interesting prediction....

I agree with you on Opteron and the 970. Question is will Apple use x86 instructions or will AMD put PPC instruction in place of the X86. AMD's processor are RISC with CISC in the front. That would be interesting.... Makes sense since both 970 and Opteron are 32/64. I'm dreaming, but that would be nice.

allpar

Apr 23, 2003, 01:46 PM

Would be nice if not TOO pricey.

Awimoway

Apr 23, 2003, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by inkswamp
First off, the disclaimer: this is my pet theory, i.e., a total, wild, pulled-of-out-my-*ss speculation, okay. I have no inside info or contact with people who might know this, but here is my speculation of why this AMD thing keeps coming up despite the fact that the use of the IBM 970 is almost a certainty.

Put this AMD thing into a bigger context of recent events.

We've heard that 10.3 will include a more integrated Classic environment where Classic Mac OS apps will be given many of the benefits of Aqua.

Apple quietly releases their implementation of XWindows system, X11. Despite the fact that this news set Slashdot buzzing for days on end and probably should have had some mention from Steve Jobs in the keynote he'd given a few days prior, it was released very quietly. Interesting.

Next, the somewhat unexpected news that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC. What on earth could Microsoft want with VPC? We can speculate that they want greater control over emulation of Windows on the Mac, but that sounds weak. They still control the operating system that gets installed on VPC so from that perspective they've gained nothing by buying out VPC.

And then these weird, peristent, inexplicable rumors that Apple is in talks with AMD about something or other. Who knows what. It's very doubtful that it's about a chip that would replace the PPC since we've read many, many well-informed examinations of such a move and the technical hurdles would likely ruin Apple.

So what could all this possibly point to? Apple has given us a system that can basically run software from three different operating systems: the classic Mac OS, Mas OS X (the Next OS), and Unix. They recently brought the Unix world closer with the release of X11. Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware? Maybe it would give Mac users the ability to run Windows and PC software, not via software emulation, but with hardware assistance. Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.

Now does Microsoft buying VPC make sense? Maybe? Maybe not. Maybe MS Mac Business Unit caught wind of this and wants to one-up Apple somehow. Any thoughts?

AMD would be a likely partner is such a move since one could imagine the problems with Intel assisting Apple with this. If it was popular, Intel would be killing their own business. AMD, on the other hand, wouldn't, if I understand the situation correctly.

Anyway... like I said... wild speculation, but that's what all this says to me.

Would be nice. But if the Apple professional office suite rumors are true (and consider the one today about a budgeting app), it would seem that Apple is trying to give its customers Mac OS-based solutions, suggesting that an option to run x86 software is not in Apple's game plan.

But I realize I'm trading in nothing but rumors here.

Brandon Sharitt

Apr 23, 2003, 01:59 PM

I don't think Apple is talking to AMD about CPUs right now. While CPUs are their most visible bussiness, AMD makes a lot of chip that Apple could use.

If by some chance Apple does use their CPUs, it probably won't be across the board in a total switch like PPC was. Apple seems as though they are trying to get into the big server and workstation market with IBM, Sun, HP, and all those companies. IBM and Sun seem to be offering or planing to offer Opeteron solutions along side their regular platforms. Apple could be doing this with Xserve, and possibly bigger servers.

3.1416

Apr 23, 2003, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by inkswamp
Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.

That would be the death of Apple. Developers would have no reason to write apps for the Mac, they'd just tell Mac users to use the Windows version since it would be "good enough". This is what happened to OS/2, which ran Windows 3.1 apps transparently.

vollspacken

Apr 23, 2003, 02:52 PM

I'm sick of those apple-amd speculations!

IF, and I say IF, this should really happen, you can all call me SAUERKRAUT!!! there will be no amd-processor in a power mac :o

vSpacken

eric_n_dfw

Apr 23, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by 3.1416
That would be the death of Apple. Developers would have no reason to write apps for the Mac, they'd just tell Mac users to use the Windows version since it would be "good enough". This is what happened to OS/2, which ran Windows 3.1 apps transparently. Bingo!

Rincewind42

Apr 23, 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Chryx
Actually, AMDs Opteron 64bit chips are pretty close to the PowerPC 970 in power consumption, ~40w @ 1.8Ghz

(Intel have the hottest running award at the moment, the 3.06Ghz P4 tops 100w peak)

Uh... where did you get that? From another register article the Opteron 244 (the highest end chip) burns 89 watts at 1.8Ghz - more than twice the estimate of the 970@1.8Ghz.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/30354.html

Chryx

Apr 23, 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by Rincewind42
Uh... where did you get that? From another register article the Opteron 244 (the highest end chip) burns 89 watts at 1.8Ghz - more than twice the estimate of the 970@1.8Ghz.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/30354.html

Thermal Design Power (http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1034628,00.asp)

"The Opteron is being rated at a thermal design power, or thermal tolerance, of 80 watts, according to sources. But OEMs familiar with the design say AMD is being generous and allowing quite a bit of future thermal headroom for faster Opterons.

"That's the spec," said Phil Hester, chief executive of Newisys, a Texas server startup wholly focused on the Opteron, and in which AMD owns a minority stake. "But the actual is more like 40 watts." Part of the Newisys sales pitch is to allow customers to touch the working Opteron chip package, which is "slightly warm to the touch," Hester said. "

the 89 watt figure is the ceiling for Opterons on .13, NOT the actual operating power/heat dissipation for them.

eric_n_dfw

Apr 23, 2003, 03:29 PM

Originally posted by inkswamp
We've heard that 10.3 will include a more integrated Classic environment where Classic Mac OS apps will be given many of the benefits of Aqua.We have? I was not aware of this. I wonder why their wasting their time on that though - Classic is becoming irrelevant pretty quickly. Where did you hear it?

Originally posted by inkswamp
Apple quietly releases their implementation of XWindows system, X11. Despite the fact that this news set Slashdot buzzing for days on end and probably should have had some mention from Steve Jobs in the keynote he'd given a few days prior, it was released very quietly. Interesting.It wasn't quiet to anyone who cares about Unix. It was in the ADC newsletter and is linked off the main OS X web page. It is front and center if you click the "Unix" icon on the top OS X page too. (BTW, it's X Window - no "s" on the end - "X Window System" to be 100% geeky)

Originally posted by inkswamp
Next, the somewhat unexpected news that Microsoft was buying Virtual PC. What on earth could Microsoft want with VPC? We can speculate that they want greater control over emulation of Windows on the Mac, but that sounds weak. They still control the operating system that gets installed on VPC so from that perspective they've gained nothing by buying out VPC.Most people agreed, the day that they bought it, that MS was more interested in the x86 version of VirtualPC than the Mac version. It will allow them to host Win32 apps on their Win64 platform that might otherwise not be ported - kind-of like a Classic mode for Window 2003 64 Bit edition. (Which is out BTW)

Originally posted by inkswamp
And then these weird, peristent, inexplicable rumors that Apple is in talks with AMD about something or other. Who knows what. It's very doubtful that it's about a chip that would replace the PPC since we've read many, many well-informed examinations of such a move and the technical hurdles would likely ruin Apple.Agreed - but in a few years, when more App's are ported to Cocoa, multiple architectures would be pretty easy to handle. (Maybe even Carbon apps - I haven't looked at Carbon)

Originally posted by inkswamp
Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware?:o yawn. How would that be much better than the "PC on a card" solution that was tried by Apple in the beige days (and by Amiga for that matter). It always ends up costing about as much to provide PC compatible, integrated hardware, just so that you can run PC apps, than it would to just go buy a cheap PC and a KVM switch.

Originally posted by inkswamp
Maybe it would give Mac users the ability to run Windows and PC software, not via software emulation, but with hardware assistance. Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.As was said by someone else - as long as Windows is the dominant desktop OS, this would cannibalize OS X application development. (see earlier comment by 3.1416)

type_r503

Apr 23, 2003, 03:46 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by inkswamp
Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what all x86 chips are now. Really not that amazing.

BenRoethig

Apr 23, 2003, 04:10 PM

Apple, IBM, and AMD working together doesn't have to mean Athlon Macs. It's much cheaper to co-develop technologies all parties have access to.

Sun Baked

Apr 23, 2003, 04:35 PM

AMD is the lead company on HyperTransport...

Even if Apple decides to use Rapid I/O for the main bus, they'll probably still need to end up needing a HyperTransport bridge to add some of the functions that may not be available off-the-shelf under RIO.

And with IBM & Motorola pushing Rapid I/O, Apple using a Hybrid RIO/Hypertransport system would allow them to function effectively with IBM standards while still retaining Wintel H/W standards compatibility.

So in short, even if Apple goes with IBM -- they still need to keep talking to AMD.

pgwalsh

Apr 23, 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by BenRoethig
Apple, IBM, and AMD working together doesn't have to mean Athlon Macs. It's much cheaper to co-develop technologies all parties have access to. You're right, but it doesn't negate the possibility either.

Sleix

Apr 23, 2003, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by inkswamp

Wouldn't it be amazing if hardware in the near-future included an "add-on" chip (something like Altivec that works in conjuction with the PPC processor) that emulated the x86 hardware? Maybe it would give Mac users the ability to run Windows and PC software, not via software emulation, but with hardware assistance. Imagine the interest Apple could draw if they presented the world with a machine that runs the Classic, OS X, Unix and Windows applications... all in one environment and almost seamlessly.

I disagree with doing this solution for one real reason. Three words. "Remember the Amiga?"

Okay, now that I pointed that out, if you're not clear about your history of computing...the Amiga back in the late 80s - Early 90s had an option for daughter boards so they can use other computer's operating systems (They had a Macintosh and a 386/486 Intel Option, wow.) This, I believe, was one of the bigger mistakes that Amiga had done. After they became widely available, the programmers were sort of inching away from programming native Amiga, because without any real reason for the manufacturers to create programs for that environment natively, they fell upon their old addage of "Whatever works for that daughterboard will do fine for you, live with it."

Allowing this mistake to happen was one of the inevitable things that KILLED the Amiga...or brought it down to 0.001% of the computer market, if you believe that it hasn't died yet. :)

Alright, now that we've had enough of that history lesson...

mathiasr

Apr 23, 2003, 06:23 PM

Just take a look here to notice the Apple logo among the top 3 members:
http://www.hypertransport.org/

AMD and Apple working together is nothing new. When the XServe was introduced Apple France did a tour to present the server, I attended at one of the presentations, and a speaker clearly stated that the chipset at the heart of the XServe had been ingineered with AMDs help and made by AMD, he also said that it was the begining of a new collaboration.

IJ Reilly

Apr 23, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
We have? I was not aware of this. I wonder why their wasting their time on that though - Classic is becoming irrelevant pretty quickly. Where did you hear it?

I haven't heard it anywhere that I can recall, but it makes perfect sense. I'm prepared to stake my entire, vast reputation as a prognosticator on the proposition that 10.3 will feature a version of Classic that won't be bootable on any Mac and will be more seamlessly integrated into OSX then Classic is currently.

Nermal

Apr 24, 2003, 12:07 AM

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I haven't heard it anywhere that I can recall, but it makes perfect sense. I'm prepared to stake my entire, vast reputation as a prognosticator on the proposition that 10.3 will feature a version of Classic that won't be bootable on any Mac and will be more seamlessly integrated into OSX then Classic is currently.

I've heard it, but not for months. I would've heard it either here or on MOSR (in which case it can't possibly be true!) :p

barkmonster

Apr 24, 2003, 06:13 AM

We've heard that 10.3 will include a more integrated Classic environment where Classic Mac OS apps will be given many of the benefits of Aqua.

We have? I was not aware of this. I wonder why their wasting their time on that though - Classic is becoming irrelevant pretty quickly. Where did you hear it?

It was on MOSR a while ago.

I hope apple are planning to allow low level access to the hardware from classic, If this is coupled with the ability to disable virtual memory in classic (or fool classic into thinking it's disabled), the whole OS 9 boot issue should go away then for audio people.

Logic, DP4, Reason and the highly quirky Protools 6 arn't reason enough to think a mac that only boots OS X is an option for now. Plug-ins, software synths, Core Audio drivers all need to be working fully and ported to OS X before a new mac is even an option for some of us. They could bring out a dual 2Ghz PPC970 powermac with 8Gb of RAM for $1000 and it would just sit under my desk waiting for software to be available right now.

Compufix

Apr 24, 2003, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Sleix

the Amiga back in the late 80s - Early 90s had an option for daughter boards so they can use other computer's operating systems (They had a Macintosh and a 386/486 Intel Option, wow.)

...snip

Allowing this mistake to happen was one of the inevitable things that KILLED the Amiga...or brought it down to 0.001% of the computer market, if you believe that it hasn't died yet. :)

To be accurate....Commodore was the reason Amiga failed (they simply did NOT do anything with it regarding marketing...it really was a machine YEARS ahead of anything else....)

Also, they supplied only the PC card option (just like Apple did). The Mac emulation was a product called EMPLANT done by a third party (of which I was a beta tester)...truly amazing technology that actually gave HARDWARE (SCSI controller, Serial ports and timing chips) and I used it for many years....2 Major developments started on the Amiga that are in use today in the Video/Graphics industry...the Video Toaster started on the Amiga and was the first true 4 input production video switcher available for a computer system that was able to do what systems costing tens of thousands of dollars did, and as a throw in, came with a nifty little 3d program called Lightwave, which we all now know and love...and you can thank the Amiga for a great deal of Hacker Demo's using 3d funky graphics and the mod music format.

Ahhh those were the days 8-)

Now back to our regularly scheduled computer platform....

SwitchMonkey

Apr 24, 2003, 10:09 AM

The fact Apple is out there so much heartens me.
I feel that their motherboard designs have fallen seriously behind, and one cannot lay blame entirely on the CPU sourcer. Apple should leverage all the external engineering innovation it can. Apple must have a longterm strategy, but none of us really know what that is.

I can, however, imagine a custom Opteron with Altivec/PPC layer. AMD has already successfully reengineered Intel's MMC. Hardware wise, I don't see many "deal breakers".

Isn't it really time to do a major motherboard redesign anyways? especially during a MACOSX 64 design phase.... There really could be some big price/performance wins for Apple's highend customers.
That said, operating 32bit PPC software bugfree on an Opteron platform and also urging developers to create new 64bit software are "much tougher things to do".

I'd love to see Opteron & Hypertransport chips in a Macintosh.. Only a few of the modern Apple motherboards are very similar anyways.

Ok, who wants to talk about MIPS in a Mac.. ok just joking..

Originally posted by pgwalsh
You're right, but it doesn't negate the possibility either.

ipiloot

Apr 24, 2003, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by John_DiMatteo
I saw a rather strange article in PC Mag concerning Apple using both Intel Itanium and PowerPC chips. Even though I thought the writer must have been out of his mind when he wrote the article, it is still interesting.

The article can be found here (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp).

(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,933453,00.asp)

I am thinking that maybe Apple could use both AMD Opteron and IBM 970 and follow through a similar plan in the article.

Ah! This article's madness must be rubbing off on me!

Oh! C'mon. It's Dvorak. Whatever he say's he's always wrong. I don't eaven follow he's BS anymore. Once I did and even got excited about he's writings time-to-time, but today some comments here seem to be way smater than Dvoraks blablabla. This man doesn't a the clue what's happening around. He just picks up some things on net and speculates around those. Nothing that separates him from average macrumors commenter. I don't know why the hell PCmag pay's him.

Ganzorigm

Apr 24, 2003, 07:40 PM

Finally we have a choice to run 64 bit of AMD and IBM chip and we have power to bit Wintel;)

eric_n_dfw

Apr 24, 2003, 08:34 PM

Originally posted by Compufix
To be accurate....Commodore was the reason Amiga failed (they simply did NOT do anything with it regarding marketing...it really was a machine YEARS ahead of anything else....)Ain't that the truth! I was a hard core Amiga geek and worked for Commodore for a while. I was an "Amiga Student On Campus Consultant" at U of AZ back in 90-91 and they (C=), in the imortal words of Butthead, "sucked more than anything has ever sucked before!"

They wanted me to sell and support Amiga's but would give me next to no hardware and no money for booth space in the student union. This while IBM had huge, canopied booths on the mall touting their new PS/2 machines and Apple throwing Mac IIci's at any student that walked by!

My manager (in CA somewhere) got layed off and I never heard from them again. (I was hired as a private contractor)

As for the VT - it rocked - NewTek single handedly kept Commie/Amiga alive for several years with it. From what I've seen, though, the Toaster NT is less than spectacular.
NewTek used to be so cool! (Remember Kiki! Oh-la-la :cool: )

And you're not kidding about the hacker demos - the tricks those guys did with the Copper chip were awesome, made even the most expensive Mac IIfx's at the like look silly.

The only computer I used that made me want to leave Amiga back then was the NeXT Cube ... which is the only reason I'm on an Apple today! (OS X == OPENSTEP 5)

What were we talking about?

SwitchMonkey

Apr 25, 2003, 12:21 AM

SLAP! Breathe man! Damn you breathe!!
Everything is going to be okay, it was just a flashback!

(PS: there were some pretty tricky upgrade companies out there, huh?)

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Ain't that the truth! I was a hard core Amiga geek and worked for Commodore for a while. I was an "Amiga Student On Campus Consultant" at U of AZ back in 90-91 and they (C=), in the imortal words of Butthead, "sucked more than anything has ever sucked before!"
.
.
.
What were we talking about?

MrMacMan

Apr 25, 2003, 12:39 AM

Apple will probably use hypertransport.

Apple will probably not use an AMD chip right now.

As the article says, don't read too much into it. I'm suprised they didn't flat out say 'yes apple is a co-founder of hypertransport and has always talked to AMD' AND THAT WOULD BE THE END, but nnoooooo, they have to speculate... 'there is a .0001% chance of this happening'

If apple comes out with an AMD chip before the 970 or whatever is next I will give you the password to this account.

docpsycho

Apr 25, 2003, 03:48 AM

This could serve as awakeup call to the 3rd member of the PPC consortium... ya those clowns eho made "banana" cell phones. as to pour in some R&D dollars to get offa their arses (doubtfull)

would like to see PPC boards that get above 500MHZ (intel now at 800) and a from the ground up 64 or even 128 bit proccessors. Not the slap together job of 2x32=64 half arse job . . . how cheap (real design) can you get?

would also like to see some performance in the aqua interface . . .way to GPU dependant

still want to know where da heck the " computer for the rest of us" is!!!

wish I had the time to type properly too!