Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
John Dvorak - MacIntel
- Thread starter LVzardoz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why must this man be linked to every time he opens his mouth? He makes my brain hurt by his stupidity.
i think apple would be better off with an intel processor, they are faster and consumers notice that, and apple suffers. the only thing is is that "every" single program ever written for the mac would have to be rewritten, apple already made developers rewrite for OS X, i doubt developers would do it again. Now I do think an XServe with an x86 version of Mac OS X Server would work. Most people use the software already in OS X Server to run, Apple would just need to put a OS X GUI on their x86 version of FileMaker Pro and have some developers design some other apps and they would be set. I doubt this would happen but I could see it working, apple and intel have very good relations, or should i say the ceo of each company. I see bright things for Apple. If Apple can talk to Fortune 500 companies and find out a list of software which they require, apple can help get these ported. Then they need some faster processors, and work with companies on getting more top 10 games on the mac they would be set. Im glad the army is porting their game, that is just what apple needs to get things going, hopefully other companies will see the army game as a success and follow. Apple knows what needs to be done, lets just hope part of it gets done on WWDC.
iJon
iJon
Dvorak's lost his touch.
I think he must be particularly dense or something. The obvious facts he doesn't seem to know are
(1) Itanium is slow and expensive. It is the HP's "chip of death".
(2) Itanium is not code-compatible with the x86 processors in any way. The two are completely different architectures! Itanium can run x86 code in emulation mode, but a port for Itanium is a completely different task from a port to the x86.
Microsoft is going to be dissipating a lot of energy supporting three different chip architectures: Itanium, x86/64 (Opteron), and x86 (Pentium). But they're a big company with a lot of energy to dissipate. Apple is a little company that cannot afford such large-scale waste.
I think he must be particularly dense or something. The obvious facts he doesn't seem to know are
(1) Itanium is slow and expensive. It is the HP's "chip of death".
(2) Itanium is not code-compatible with the x86 processors in any way. The two are completely different architectures! Itanium can run x86 code in emulation mode, but a port for Itanium is a completely different task from a port to the x86.
Microsoft is going to be dissipating a lot of energy supporting three different chip architectures: Itanium, x86/64 (Opteron), and x86 (Pentium). But they're a big company with a lot of energy to dissipate. Apple is a little company that cannot afford such large-scale waste.
A few things worth noting:
1) The upcoming Deerfield Itanium processor will debut at $871 and have performance similar to that of the current Itanium 2 system (Which is very good). Although this price is far below any of the other current or upcoming Itaniums it will be too expensive for desktops (Pentium 4s and Athlons cost less than half that much), this will probably only be used in workstations.
2) Since Itanium is not x86, Apple won't have any competition from any major pc vendors anytime soon, however we also won't have the benefit of the large software database of x86. Chances are, we'll have even less software than we have now (which is a good amount)
3) If Apple switches it will be a nightmare for the software developers who will have to rewrite everything in 64 bits and for EPIC. This will not go over well and a considerable amount of time will have to be spent doing this using up resources that can otherwise be used developing new software.
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that Apple will go with Intel, at least the Itanium solution, the benefits (Performance-1 Ghz Itanium 2 renders over 3 times faster than a 2.8 Ghz Xeon in Pov-Ray) are just not worth the costs (Price, Smaller Software Base, Massive Reworkings) that will result from moving to a Itanium solution. PPC970 will do just fine for me thank you.
1) The upcoming Deerfield Itanium processor will debut at $871 and have performance similar to that of the current Itanium 2 system (Which is very good). Although this price is far below any of the other current or upcoming Itaniums it will be too expensive for desktops (Pentium 4s and Athlons cost less than half that much), this will probably only be used in workstations.
2) Since Itanium is not x86, Apple won't have any competition from any major pc vendors anytime soon, however we also won't have the benefit of the large software database of x86. Chances are, we'll have even less software than we have now (which is a good amount)
3) If Apple switches it will be a nightmare for the software developers who will have to rewrite everything in 64 bits and for EPIC. This will not go over well and a considerable amount of time will have to be spent doing this using up resources that can otherwise be used developing new software.
Personally, I find it highly unlikely that Apple will go with Intel, at least the Itanium solution, the benefits (Performance-1 Ghz Itanium 2 renders over 3 times faster than a 2.8 Ghz Xeon in Pov-Ray) are just not worth the costs (Price, Smaller Software Base, Massive Reworkings) that will result from moving to a Itanium solution. PPC970 will do just fine for me thank you.
I think Dvorak has been on the end of too many blunts, He gets his info by gazing into a bowl of alphabets. Mac going x86 give me a break,mac walking away from ppc i dont think so. Truth be known he knows more about the sex life of hummingbirds then he will ever know about macs. Please John dont talk,write or comment on something you dont know jack crap about. stick to windblows and keep us from your pain.