Should Apple buy Sun? [Archive]

backdraft

Mar 19, 2009, 06:03 PM

IBM + Sun
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10199233-92.html?tag=mncol

Its rumored that IBM is going after Sun, but I'm wondering if Apple would be a better fit.

Sun has the support infrastructure and experience that Apple sorely needs in order to go after the enterprise. Sun has key technologies in Solaris, Sun Grid Engine, Virtualization, Storage, MySQL, Java, etc... that Apple can use to complement their current offerings. For example Apple canceled the XRaid, now what if Sun's expertise in storage and ZFS, Grid Engine were combined to make the ultimate video studio backend think Final Cut Server + ZFS + XSan, Xgrid/Sun Grid + Qmaster(renderfarm) etc... Sparc + PWRficient chips. Mac OS X + Solaris

So should Apple buy Sun?

pilotError

Mar 19, 2009, 06:06 PM

Would love to see it, but I don't know if Apple is really in a position to absorb it right now.

MisterMe

Mar 19, 2009, 06:42 PM

...

So should Apple buy Sun?I am ambivalent. Sun and Apple are both Silicon Valley legends. More than a decade ago, Sun and Apple used the same design firm for much of their product lines. Sun has Java. The Sun NeWS was a pioneering Display PostScript-based GUI. Like the Apple of old, Sun can be just a bit mercurial. I will never forget being in the market for a workstation. A call to my local Sun office found the entire sales staff on vacation. I bought a DEC. But, I digress.

When you really get down to it, the things for which we love Sun are in the past. If IBM buys Sun, then it will have the opportunity to reduce the number of competitors by one. However, Apple and Sun are not competitors. I don't see anything for Apple to gain in a Sun buyout.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 19, 2009, 06:51 PM

As a Sun shareholder whom made a nice little sum of money on the IBM/Sun rumors, I personally think that whatever alleged merger may happen it's a good thing.

Apple acquiring Sun wouldn't make much sense, unless of course Apple has decided that they wanted to enter the data center market (Which HP and IBM have a nice hold on).

This deal is all about positioning for IBM. They want to take on HP and fend off Cisco which just announced they are entering the data center market.

Sad to see the once almighty Ra Sun go, but perhaps it is time.

kastenbrust

Mar 19, 2009, 06:56 PM

Would love to see it, but I don't know if Apple is really in a position to absorb it right now.

With $30 billion in the bank in cash? are you kidding me? Apple would still have plenty of spare change... Sun's only going for $6.5 billion, thats what Apple ammased in the last quater of 2008, its nothing for them.
However i dont see how Sun could possibly benefit Apple, Sun's dumb terminal server technology could help Apple's server technology, and help them break through into the corporate market, but its nothing Apple couldn't do if they felt like it.

dejo

Mar 19, 2009, 06:58 PM

Apple buy Sun? Years ago the rumors were just the opposite.

michael.lauden

Mar 19, 2009, 07:01 PM

apple should buy Sun now why everyone is in trouble with money. that is quite a big purchase - and Apple only has something to lose in the transaction.

where as they could continue saving and buy Sony after the new iPhone comes out :)

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 07:08 PM

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 07:10 PM

Apple should have bought IBM and continued with PowerPC development instead of switching to Intel. Who cares about running Windows on a Mac.
Architecturally, PowerPC Macs were better.

As for Apple buying Sun, that's fine. As long as the decision helps Apple in the long run, I am fine by it.

unbelievable

seriously, some people here need to accept the fact powerpc was a dead end and intel is a much much better solution in the meantime...

architecturally better? please:rolleyes:

who cares about running windows on a mac? many do....:rolleyes:

for someone who wrote "as long as the decision helps apple in the long run" why do you not recognize the fact the intel switch was in fact a decision that helped apple in the long run:cool:

IJ Reilly

Mar 19, 2009, 07:10 PM

Apple buy Sun? Years ago the rumors were just the opposite.

Worth discussing for the irony factor alone? ;)

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 07:14 PM

seriously, some people here need to accept the fact powerpc was a dead end and intel is a much much better solution in the meantime...

I will never accept it. PowerPC would have been just fine if Apple had intervened.

belvdr

Mar 19, 2009, 07:15 PM

I don't see many synergies between Apple and Sun, so there's not much they could do to cut costs while keeping revenue. This wouldn't be a good move.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 19, 2009, 07:21 PM

I will never accept it. PowerPC would have been just fine if Apple had intervened.

Really?

belvdr

Mar 19, 2009, 07:23 PM

I will never accept it. PowerPC would have been just fine if Apple had intervened.

I believe it was wise for Apple to switch. Now, they don't have to concern themselves with R&D for CPUs and chipsets, and can concentrate their efforts elsewhere. And you still get the same OS you've always enjoyed.

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 07:23 PM

I will never accept it. PowerPC would have been just fine if Apple had intervened.

no it wouldn't......apple could not magically force something out of ibm hence why they went to intel

why was my first post to this quote "deleted"

seriously....

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 07:27 PM

no it wouldn't......apple could not magically force something out of ibm hence why they went to intel

Apple could design their own PowerPC chip-sets and continue PowerPC development.

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 07:29 PM

Apple could design their own PowerPC chip-sets and continue PowerPC development.

you make it sound as if thats easy:rolleyes:

heck apple doesnt need intel or ibm at all! they can just make all their own cpus!

belvdr

Mar 19, 2009, 07:29 PM

Apple could design their own PowerPC chip-sets and continue PowerPC development.

Why would you want them to develop CPUs and chipsets and incur additional expense? They would either need to increase pricing on products to retain the same profit or accept reduced profit. In this economy, I'd prefer them to have Intel.

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 07:30 PM

you make it sound as if thats easy:rolleyes:
There is nothing wrong with that.
heck apple doesnt need intel or ibm at all! they can just make all their own cpus!
Do you imagine the time spent on developing new CPU architecture? Why not use an already existing good one like PowerPC?

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 07:33 PM

There is nothing wrong with that.

Do you imagine the time spent on developing new CPU architecture? Why not use an already existing good one like PowerPC?

LOL im being way sarcastic at your expense my friend. too bad you didnt pick up on it

it would be way too much effort for apple to make their own cpu's....even if they somehow got ibm to let them in to make their own ppc chip

apple is not a chip designer.....

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 07:36 PM

In this economy,
Blame it on George W. Bush.
LOL im being way sarcastic at your expense my friend. too bad you didnt pick up on it
I am not good with sarcasm.

it would be way too much effort for apple to make their own cpu's....even if they somehow got ibm to let them in to make their own ppc chip
Who said switching to Intel wasn't too much effort? In fact, I think switching to Intel was more effort.
apple is not a chip designer.....
Who said that they can't be?

belvdr

Mar 19, 2009, 07:38 PM

Who said switching to Intel wasn't too much effort. In fact, I think switching to Intel was more effort.

Since OS X is based on Darwin, there was no trouble for the core OS. However, all they needed to do was port once, and it was over.

Also, see my post above. Why would you want Apple to increase costs for R&D?

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 07:40 PM

ugh im tired of playing fantasy with you

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 07:41 PM

Since OS X is based on Darwin, there was no trouble for the core OS. However, all they needed to do was port once, and it was overwith.

The first Intel Macs had so many problems. Why go through that pain? Why not continue on the same architecture and design the PowerPC Macs had?

belvdr

Mar 19, 2009, 07:43 PM

The first Intel Macs had so many problems. Why go through that pain? Why not continue on the same architecture and design the PowerPC Macs had?

Because it costs money. If Apple brought CPU/chipset development in-house, it would cost them more money to build machines. They either have to raise prices to keep the same profit, or accept lower profit. Is this better in your mind?

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 07:43 PM

The first Intel Macs had so many problems. Why go through that pain? Why not continue on the same architecture and design the PowerPC Macs had?

because ppc was a dead end.....

PeterQC

Mar 19, 2009, 07:51 PM

Who said that they can't be?

They were. But with constant offering from competitor with better chipset, I beleive Apple made the right decision.

Just look at the G5. They were not able to deliver it in a notebook because of the heat and power consumption while the high-end G5s in the last Power Macs required water cooling! What Intel was offering at the time was just better. Cool enough to be put in a notebook and less power consuming, while being faster. What's the best? They were able to offer their product at the same price range with the arguably same profit rate, without having to put any more effort in developing PPC.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 19, 2009, 07:51 PM

The first Intel Macs had so many problems. Why go through that pain? Why not continue on the same architecture and design the PowerPC Macs had?

This is why...

because ppc was a dead end.....

... thanks for taking the words out of my mouth.

The architecture for PPC on the personal side is, was and will continue to be dead.

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 08:31 PM

The architecture for PPC on the personal side is, was and will continue to be dead.
Look at the PS3 and Xbox 360.
ugh im tired of playing fantasy with you
There is no such thing as "fantasy". Everything is possible in a parallel universe.

PeterQC

Mar 19, 2009, 08:58 PM

Look at the PS3 and Xbox 360.

PS3 is based upon PowerPC and maximized for gaming (The Cell). Not technically the same thing. They also sounds like aircraft engines and developers have difficulties to program for the platform. Have you seen how big they are for a console? Don't forget they still losing money on them! Same thing about the 360, which have some technical difficulties (RROD) because of the heat they produce. The Wii also has a PPC-base processor processor, which is pretty much weak!

Using the same hardware then these consoles for personal computers would require a complete port of current OS, programs, drivers... Tons of work, devellopement... Why not just use Intel processors and cut on useless development?

MacNut

Mar 19, 2009, 09:48 PM

It took Apple 2 years to get the PPC chips updated. We were stuck at 800 mhz for years because IBM was dragging their heels. The increases were .25 MHZ every update. We waited 5 years for a G5 Powerbook that was never going to be possible because IBM could not get the power and heat issues under control. Don't forget that Motorola was a developer as well. And they were in a tug of war.

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 10:01 PM

Using the same hardware then these consoles for personal computers would require a complete port of current OS, programs, drivers... Tons of work, devellopement... Why not just use Intel processors and cut on useless development?
The Intel transition required a lot of port and development.
It took Apple 2 years to get the PPC chips updated. We were stuck at 800 mhz for years because IBM was dragging their heels. The increases were .25 MHZ every update. We waited 5 years for a G5 Powerbook that was never going to be possible because IBM could not get the power and heat issues under control. Don't forget that Motorola was a developer as well. And they were in a tug of war.

I still like PowerPC CPUs better.

MacNut

Mar 19, 2009, 10:02 PM

Just curious but can you tell a difference between a PPC and Intel Macs? Besides Intels being faster I don't know how you can compare them. The OS is the same.

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 10:04 PM

Just curious but can you tell a difference between a PPC and Intel Macs?

To me, PowerPC CPUs are more stable and PowerPC is a better and securer architecture.

MacNut

Mar 19, 2009, 10:05 PM

To me, PowerPC CPUs are more stable and PowerPC is a better and securer architecture.The chip is only as good as the OS running on it. So I don't get how it is less secure. If by stable you mean slower than yes that is true.

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 10:06 PM

To me, PowerPC CPUs are more stable and PowerPC is a better and securer architecture.

well thats the same logic as thinking your car runs better after getting a carwash....aka a placebo effect

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 10:09 PM

The chip is only as good as the OS running on it. So I don't get how it is less secure. If by stable you mean slower than yes that is true.
The Intel Macs are just like PCs with Mac OS X. Not that much uniqueness about them other than the OS and the outside design.
well thats the same logic as thinking your car runs better after getting a carwash....aka a placebo effect
In case you have noticed, I am a very nostalgic PowerPC Mac person. PowerPC will always have a place in my heart.

dukebound85

Mar 19, 2009, 10:10 PM

The Intel Macs are just like PCs with Mac OS X. Not that much uniqueness about them other than the OS and the outside design.

In case you have noticed, I am a very nostalgic PowerPC Mac person. PowerPC will always have a place in my heart.

yea ive noticed

i have to ask why does it matter

why not be a motorola fan?

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 10:12 PM

yea ive noticed

i have to ask why does it matter

why not be a motorola fan?
And I forgot to mention. PowerPC was meant for workstations (which Macs can be/are). x86 Intel used to be for the average Joe Schmoe.

jessica.

Mar 19, 2009, 10:12 PM

yea ive noticed

i have to ask why does it matter

why not be a motorola fan?

I'm a motorola fan ... and I like orange tang.

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 10:15 PM

I'm a motorola fan ... and I like orange tang.

And thanks to Intel, the x86 architecture is the mainstream. I am not really fond of that. It makes the Mac sort of "cheap" hardware-wise in my opinion.
PowerPC forever!

MacNut

Mar 19, 2009, 10:18 PM

kabunaru

Mar 19, 2009, 10:24 PM

Apple would not have survived if they stayed with PPC. The architecture was not growing fast enough for Apple's needs. They could not get the chips fast enough. It took IBM years to reach 1.0 GHz while Intel was pushing the Pentium over 2

Good point but somewhere in another dimension, Apple stayed with PowerPC and PowerPC was successful. So, basically, what's the point of really arguing this when all of this did happen somewhere out there?
Nice debate though. Thanks.

PeterQC

Mar 19, 2009, 11:44 PM

The Intel transition required a lot of port and development.

Less then developing the chipset on top.

To me, PowerPC CPUs are more stable and PowerPC is a better and securer architecture.

Not true.

The Intel Macs are just like PCs with Mac OS X. Not that much uniqueness about them other than the OS and the outside design.

How does the hardware inside your box affect what you do? Intel is making giant step with their new Cores architecture, while IBM was having trouble to make CPU more powerful with the G5s that weren't melting their boxes without air cooling. Seriously, the Intel transition did absolutely nothing from the user point of view, apart of having faster, cooler, less hungry CPUs and less sporadic updates. Adding the fact that you could now install windows without a slow ass emulator, this give a lot more, the transition give a lot more to the user then the PPC could do during their lifetime. The only real downside of the Intel transition that I can think of was the downgrading of the GPU in the first Macbooks and the Apps the transition, which is now irrelevant now..

In case you have noticed, I am a very nostalgic PowerPC Mac person. PowerPC will always have a place in my heart.

Irrevelant to the thread, as is this debate. Sadly, you're only showing to use that you're a nostalgic Fanboy.

And I forgot to mention. PowerPC was meant for workstations (which Macs can be/are). x86 Intel used to be for the average Joe Schmoe.

Exactly, The POWER chipsets were never meant for the consumers. One of the points where you're wrong is that Macs were just workstations. They were essentially computer for everybody, and still is. The other is about Intel. Maybe old Intels processors were for the average "Schmoe", I don't know, I don't live in the past, but I do know now that, right now, they offer the fastest consumer, prosumer and pros CPU for personal computers and workstations. Just look a the new Xeon Nehalem Processors.

And thanks to Intel, the x86 architecture is the mainstream. I am not really fond of that. It makes the Mac sort of "cheap" hardware-wise in my opinion.
PowerPC forever!

How x86 for everybody is a bad thing? Would you have preferred that we would have all stayed at the 32 bit era?

PS- Could someone split the thread? Please?

Mord

Mar 20, 2009, 04:17 AM

No, what the hell does sun have that apple wants? Certainly not SPARC and certainly not Solaris.

rdowns

Mar 20, 2009, 06:47 AM

Good point but somewhere in another dimension, Apple stayed with PowerPC and PowerPC was successful. So, basically, what's the point of really arguing this when all of this did happen somewhere out there?
Nice debate though. Thanks.

I don't understand your wet dream over PPC chips. Do you really think Apple made the huge transition to Intel without knowing that PPC was at a dead end? The fact is, if PPC development was moving forward, Apple would have stuck with it. IBM sold Jobs a bill of goods- remember the 3 GHz in a year promise- never realized.

Seriously, who cares what's inside the box so long as it works?

As for Apple buying Sun, why? Apple has clearly been transforming themselves into a consumer electronics company that also makes PCs. They are not now, nor will they ever be, an enterprise computer company.

pilotError

Mar 20, 2009, 06:54 AM

With $30 billion in the bank in cash? are you kidding me? Apple would still have plenty of spare change... Sun's only going for $6.5 billion, thats what Apple ammased in the last quater of 2008, its nothing for them.
However i dont see how Sun could possibly benefit Apple, Sun's dumb terminal server technology could help Apple's server technology, and help them break through into the corporate market, but its nothing Apple couldn't do if they felt like it.

I meant in terms of intellectual capital. They would have to go on a hiring spree to fill in for the corporate side. Apple is pretty centered on the Consumer / Creative Pro markets.

Sun is centered in the Data Center Server market. Apple is struggling to keep up with the products they have.

Sun has a ton of Open Source and patents that Apple would love to have, but the whole Sparc thing would be a real open question. The big thing would be their services.

Would the Sun customers still stick around after an Apple purchase?

The Intel transition required a lot of port and development.

Darwin is a Mach based kernel, meaning that only the lowest level has to be ported between chip architectures. That's why it was relatively easy to move to intel and create an ARM port for the iPhone.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 08:47 AM

Not true.
Why is PowerPC preferred for supercomputers?

How does the hardware inside your box affect what you do? Intel is making giant step with their new Cores architecture, while IBM was having trouble to make CPU more powerful with the G5s that weren't melting their boxes without air cooling. Seriously, the Intel transition did absolutely nothing from the user point of view, apart of having faster, cooler, less hungry CPUs and less sporadic updates. Adding the fact that you could now install windows without a slow ass emulator, this give a lot more, the transition give a lot more to the user then the PPC could do during their lifetime. The only real downside of the Intel transition that I can think of was the downgrading of the GPU in the first Macbooks and the Apps the transition, which is now irrelevant now..
I do not care about Intel. Intel= PC, PowerPC = Mac for me. That's how it should have been.

Sadly, you're only showing to use that you're a nostalgic Fanboy.
Do you think I care?

Exactly, The POWER chipsets were never meant for the consumers. One of the points where you're wrong is that Macs were just workstations. They were essentially computer for everybody, and still is. The other is about Intel. Maybe old Intels processors were for the average "Schmoe", I don't know, I don't live in the past, but I do know now that, right now, they offer the fastest consumer, prosumer and pros CPU for personal computers and workstations. Just look a the new Xeon Nehalem Processors.

The G5 was the fastest CPU a while back.

How x86 for everybody is a bad thing? Would you have preferred that we would have all stayed at the 32 bit era?
The x86 is old and it's what makes a PC, a PC. As for the second part of your question, what does 32-bit has to do with this debate?
Running out of things to say? :D

PS- Could someone split the thread? Please?
Sure, somebody do that.

PeterQC

Mar 20, 2009, 11:01 AM

Why is PowerPC preferred for supercomputers?

How does it affect your use of your computer that these chips are used for supercomputer while you use Intel procs?

I do not care about Intel. Intel= PC, PowerPC = Mac for me. That's how it should have been.

Back up your claim. Why? It just look like you want PowerPC for the sake of being different, which is not a good reason IMO.

The G5 was the fastest CPU a while back.

Maybe it was for their workstation. But it was so hot that it required a water cooling in the last high end PowerMac (It failed for a lot of people) and IBM and Apple were unable to deliver it for the PowerBooks and iBooks. Just look at the numbers at the MBP introduction, the things were a lot more powerful then what they tried to do with the PowerBook G5.

The x86 is old and it's what makes a PC, a PC. As for the second part of your question, what does 32-bit has to do with this debate?
Running out of things to say? :D

Yeah, I know it's old and blah blah... I know I don't know a lot about x86, but does It change YOUR computing experience? Give me one relevant single, backed answer and this debate can be ended.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 11:21 AM

I am really just amazed at the logic that things should never change.

Honestly, what else didn't you want to be changed?

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 11:50 AM

I am really just amazed at the logic that things should never change.

Just the Apple-PowerPC issue only. ;)

MacNut

Mar 20, 2009, 12:17 PM

The PPC was not always in Macs. That started in 1994. So really the claim that it was always PPC is false.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:21 PM

The PPC was not always in Macs. That started in 1994. So really the claim that it was always PPC is false.

I knew that.
It just that PowerPC is what made Apple more successful.

bartelby

Mar 20, 2009, 12:22 PM

I knew that.
It just that PowerPC is what made Apple more successful.

Or, it just happened to be what they were using at the time.

MacNut

Mar 20, 2009, 12:23 PM

I knew that.
It just that PowerPC is what made Apple more successful.Apple was tanking at the time, on the brink of death. Apple is more successful now with Intel then they ever were with the PPC.

XnavxeMiyyep

Mar 20, 2009, 12:26 PM

Sun has a ton of Open Source and patents that Apple would love to have.

Hmm... would that mean a decent version of OpenOffice for OS X? :D

(Obviously, this isn't going to happen though)

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:28 PM

Apple is more successful now with Intel then they ever were with the PPC.

This will lead to more problems over time if successful too much. Hackers developing viruses for Macs and Mac will be just like Windows one day. It was better when Apple used PowerPC and was a nitch market and remained small.

MacNut

Mar 20, 2009, 12:32 PM

This will lead to more problems over time if successful too much. Hackers developing viruses for Macs and Mac will be just like Windows one day. It was better when Apple used PowerPC and was a nitch market and remained small.Apple will never get the market share of Windows. If they didn't make the move they would not have been able to survive. So either you deal with them on Intel or Apple goes away. OS 10 is a better built OS that is why it is more secure.

Did you also complain when Classic went away? That was far worse than OSX

jzuena

Mar 20, 2009, 12:32 PM

Apple should have bought IBM and continued with PowerPC development instead of switching to Intel. Who cares about running Windows on a Mac. If you want to run Windows, get a PC.
Architecturally, PowerPC Macs were better.

As for Apple buying Sun, that's fine. As long as the decision helps Apple in the long run, I am fine by it.

For a short time in 2008 Apple was technically a bigger company than IBM when measuring market cap, but for most of Apple's history (including late 2005 when they had to decide on moving to Intel) IBM has been bigger. And prior to the Intel switch, IBM was MUCH bigger. If Apple were to try and buy IBM today, they would have to come up with 125 billion US dollars. Apple is only worth 90 billion US dollars right now, so I don't see how that would happen. Were you on the "Apple should buy Cisco" bandwagon when the iPhone naming fiasco came out? At the time I think Cisco was worth roughly 1.5x - 2x what Apple was worth. Yet some on MR said Apple should just buy Cisco to teach them a lesson as if Apple were the biggest tech company on the planet. Today Cisco is only worth 94 billion, so maybe Apple will finally catch them soon.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 12:35 PM

This will lead to more problems over time if successful too much. Hackers developing viruses for Macs and Mac will be just like Windows one day. It was better when Apple used PowerPC and was a nitch market and remained small.

You do realize that the processor has nothing to do with virii?

A virus is designed for the operating system, not the processor.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:39 PM

Did you also complain when Classic went away? That was far worse than OSX
I do not care about Classic any more.
You do realize that the processor has nothing to do with virii?

A virus is designed for the operating system, not the processor.

That was not the point. Apple is becoming too popular with Intel Macs now. This could lead more to hackers business (viruses, trojans, etc). If Apple remained with PowerPC, their market and image would have been small and hackers could have cared less.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 12:41 PM

That was not the point. Apple is becoming too popular with Intel Macs now. This could lead more to hackers business (viruses, trojans, etc). If Apple remained with PowerPC, their market and image would have been small and hackers could have cared less.

So you essentially want Apple to not make any money? Last time I checked the purpose of a business is to make money.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:42 PM

So you essentially want Apple to not make any money? Last time I checked the purpose of a business is to make money.

Nitch market and a successful one for what they do.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 12:44 PM

Nitch market and a successful one for what they do.

Oh please... if Jobs didn't introduce the iPod, Apple would be dead in the friggin water.

Did we forget about that? iPod halo effect. Once the iPod became popular that's when you saw an uptick in Mac sales. What processors were they using back then ohhhh PPC.

rdowns

Mar 20, 2009, 12:44 PM

Geez, I thought the British English kick you were on was crazy...

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:46 PM

Oh please... if Jobs didn't introduce the iPod, Apple would be dead in the friggin water.

Your point?
Geez, I thought the British English kick you were on was crazy...

I do not what you are talking about. :D

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 12:47 PM

Your point?

My point was if Apple continued being a niche company, they'd be dead. Wrap your head around that for a minute. No iPod, certainly no more Apple.

jzuena

Mar 20, 2009, 12:47 PM

This will lead to more problems over time if successful too much. Hackers developing viruses for Macs and Mac will be just like Windows one day. It was better when Apple used PowerPC and was a nitch market and remained small.

Unix (including Linux and Sun's own Solaris) already runs on Intel chips, yet you don't see them suffering viruses like Windows does. And since OS X is also Unix, it won't suffer the way Windows does, either. It isn't popularity that makes an OS vulnerable, it is exploitable weaknesses. Microsoft made some inherently bad decisions in the initial Windows design and now have to work extra hard to wrap protection around it (things like UAE, since running from an Administrator account -- which 90%+ of all Windows users do -- would not otherwise challenge the user for a password when installing system software). Even if you run OS X or even Linux versions like Ubuntu as an Administrator (which I bet 90%+ of users do :D), if you try to install anything that can touch the system software, you are required to give a password. That's why there can be trojans in OS X but not viruses.

dmelgar

Mar 20, 2009, 12:47 PM

Too late for Apple, no synergy. IBM buys Sun to get Java. Most of IBM's software development is in Java. Huge dependence and exposure to Sun.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:48 PM

No iPod, certainly no more Apple.
The iPod does/should not affect the PowerPC world and decisions.

nick9191

Mar 20, 2009, 12:49 PM

I also like PPC, that doesn't make it a viable option.

Apple has doubled their marketshare, not because of OS X in general, not because of Leopard, not because of the negative response to Vista, but because of Intel. Having the ability to run Windows is an insurance policy, it breaks the fear barrier.

And yes extremely ironic that 13 years ago, it was Sun buying Apple.

XnavxeMiyyep

Mar 20, 2009, 12:50 PM

The iPod does/should not affect the PowerPC world and decisions.

The Intel processors were faster, cooler, cheaper, and less power consuming than the PPC ones. Thus, Apple switched to Intel. It's pretty straightforward.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 12:52 PM

The iPod does/should not affect the PowerPC world and decisions.

Are you serious?

The iPod has a direct correlation to Mac Sales!!!!!

Where do you think they got all their money for R&D from?

Without R&D we wouldn't have an advancements, thus we would be stuck with slow ass G4s and over heating G5s at the moment. Do you honestly think that graphic designers and whomever else use the Mac Pro's would want to stick with dated chip architecture when they get it done faster on Intel chips?

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:52 PM

Apple has doubled their marketshare, not because of OS X in general, not because of Leopard, not because of the negative response to Vista, but because of Intel. Having the ability to run Windows is an insurance policy, it breaks the fear barrier.

I do not care in the slightest bit that a Mac can run Windows or more people buy Macs because it could run Windows now.

nick9191

Mar 20, 2009, 12:57 PM

I do not care in the slightest bit that a Mac can run Windows or more people buy Macs because it could run Windows now.

Oh, damn, sorry, Steve Jobs didn't realise that you didn't care, I'm sure he would never have switched if he knew you didn't care. I'll call him, see if he can switch back.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 12:58 PM

The Intel processors were faster, cooler, cheaper, and less power consuming than the PPC ones.
I do not think so ;): http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/19544DEB-083E-4CE8-8523-CE4421D8515D.html

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 01:01 PM

I do not think so ;): http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/19544DEB-083E-4CE8-8523-CE4421D8515D.html

What are you talking about?!?!?!

The general purpose PowerPC chips Apple was using in 2005 consumed more power than today's significantly faster Core Duo chips, not less. No PowerPC partner has delivered anything comparable to Intel’s Core Duo.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 01:02 PM

What are you talking about?!?!?!

Oops, I missed that part. :o

In the beginning of the article, it said why the switch to Intel was bad.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 01:02 PM

Oops, I missed that part. :o

In the beginning of the article, it said why the switch to Intel was bad.

FAIL!!!!!!!

Your entire logic is based on rubbish.

63dot

Mar 20, 2009, 01:02 PM

Apple buy Sun? Years ago the rumors were just the opposite.

Yeah, but since then there was this pesky little thing called iPod with iTunes, and the iPhone thingy greatly increased Apple's fortunes. :)

Yes, why not if Apple has more than enough liquid assets/cash. I don't see anybody catching Apple on the MP3 or high end cell market, but just in case, Apple could use their current leverage and cash to get Sun.

HP, or HP-gate, is vulnerable right now. I think Apple-Sun could enter new markets.

XnavxeMiyyep

Mar 20, 2009, 01:03 PM

I do not think so ;): http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q2.07/19544DEB-083E-4CE8-8523-CE4421D8515D.html

The computers ultimately used less power. The article you linked me to even states that the mobile Intel processors had an unbeatable price performance ratio. There wasn't even a functional mobile G5.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 01:03 PM

Your entire logic is based on rubbish.

No, I am a PowerPC person and always will be.

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 01:05 PM

No, I am a PowerPC person and always will be.

Your belief is based on opinion, not fact. Therefore, you FAIL.

</thread>

arkitect

Mar 20, 2009, 01:06 PM

No, I am a PowerPC person and always will be.

Oh, well, then we'll wish you luck as we wave you goodbye.
Cheerio, there you go, on your way… as you fade into the past…

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 01:07 PM

Your belief is based on opinion, not fact.

The switch to Intel really did increase the Carbon footprint of Mac.

Here's a quote from the article:
“What this means,” Murphy wrote, “is that, at the very least the six million Apple computers being sold in this fiscal year would be burning 186,000KW per hour less power if Apple had not switched to Intel's x86 products.”

XnavxeMiyyep

Mar 20, 2009, 01:08 PM

The switch to Intel really did increase the Carbon footprint of Mac.

Here's a quote from the article:

A quote which was refuted later in the article.:confused:

backdraft

Mar 20, 2009, 01:09 PM

Talk about going off topic... :eek: So should Apple buy Sun? lol

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 01:09 PM

The switch to Intel really did increase the Carbon footprint of Mac.

Here's a quote from the article:

Now imagine if they sold 6 million Macs with PPC processors in it...

Ohhhh we didn't think about that did we.

Logic still failing you eh?

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 01:10 PM

A quote which was refuted later in the article.:confused:

That's very strange. Why two different points in an article?

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 01:10 PM

Talk about going off topic... :eek: So should Apple buy Sun? lol

There's a thread about it in the Current Events section which is actually about the topic at hand.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 01:11 PM

Logic still failing you eh?

There will still be less power used.

63dot

Mar 20, 2009, 01:11 PM

The first Intel Macs had so many problems. Why go through that pain? Why not continue on the same architecture and design the PowerPC Macs had?

I love the Intel Macs, and really at the same time, I loved the PPC Macs. I never had an issue with either. Can it be fair to say us Mac users were lucky never to have had to use Celerons or K6-IIs? :)

I think today's Core 2 Duo, with what it offers, for the prices Macs are today, are a great value for money. I know some people didn't warm up to the original Core Duo and many didn't like the Core Solo for sure. Thank God those days are over and we have transitioned into fast, cool, inexpensive Intel chips.

If Apple had moved earlier to Intel with the Pentium IIs/IIIs and Celerons, that would most have likely been a bad move back then when we had the G3s and G4s. When we went to dual core Intels for most stuff (except an older Mac mini model with the Solo), it was the right timing.

The only single core Intel chip I like is the Atom in the context of a possible netbook Mac. :)

XnavxeMiyyep

Mar 20, 2009, 01:11 PM

That's very strange. Why two different points in an article?

Because the article was showing the opposing point of view...

rdowns

Mar 20, 2009, 01:11 PM

No, I am a PowerPC person and always will be.

Isn't that special. :rolleyes:

Teh Don Ditty

Mar 20, 2009, 01:12 PM

There will still be less power used.

Once again, the same quote I presented you earlier...

The general purpose PowerPC chips Apple was using in 2005 consumed more power than today's significantly faster Core Duo chips, not less. No PowerPC partner has delivered anything comparable to Intel’s Core Duo.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 01:13 PM

Once again, the same quote I presented you earlier...

Again, two different points. They contradict each other.
It's like a Big Bang vs Steady State theory debate. :)

arkitect

Mar 20, 2009, 01:15 PM

Again, two different points. They contradict each other.

Look:
Read this again… slooooowly.
The general purpose PowerPC chips Apple was using in 2005 consumed more power than today's significantly faster Core Duo chips, not less. No PowerPC partner has delivered anything comparable to Intel’s Core Duo.
Perhaps you will understand.

It's like a Big Bang vs Steady State theory debate.
I am not even going to ask if you know what those really mean.

kabunaru

Mar 20, 2009, 01:17 PM

Look:
Read this again… slooooowly.

Perhaps you will understand.
Again, this still counters it:
“What this means,” Murphy wrote, “is that, at the very least the six million Apple computers being sold in this fiscal year would be burning 186,000KW per hour less power if Apple had not switched to Intel's x86 products.”

Even this:
" Murphy wrote that the new Core Duo processors range from “31 watts for the low end of the laptop line to well over 180 watts,” then compared these figures to those cited by Freescale (formerly the Motorola PowerPC fab), arriving at an Intel premium of 16 to 47 watts per processor over PowerPC. According to his math, that makes the “average difference a minimum of about 31 watts per usage hour.”

themoonisdown09

Mar 20, 2009, 01:18 PM

Again, this still counters it:
“What this means,” Murphy wrote, “is that, at the very least the six million Apple computers being sold in this fiscal year would be burning 186,000KW per hour less power if Apple had not switched to Intel's x86 products.”

Even this:
" Murphy wrote that the new Core Duo processors range from “31 watts for the low end of the laptop line to well over 180 watts,” then compared these figures to those cited by Freescale (formerly the Motorola PowerPC fab), arriving at an Intel premium of 16 to 47 watts per processor over PowerPC. According to his math, that makes the “average difference a minimum of about 31 watts per usage hour.”

Now's a good time to stop referring back to that article.