Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jan 1, 2013, 05:40 PM   #126
G51989
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New York State
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glideslope View Post
Don't underestimate Global Foundries. They have a strong presence in NY currently. IMO, the search committee favors NY over Oregon. TSC is less capable, IMO.
I didn't under estimate them, but do they want the business? They've showed no indication of wanting the business. Apple has a tendency to screw its supplies, and its showing in a general lack of interest in building Apples chips. IBM isn't interested, Intel isn't Interested, GF has showed no interest, and TSMC rejected Apples deal.

Quote:
Yes, ARM is an instruction set. However, it is one that Intel cannot use until Paul Otellini is gone, and a person not living in an X86 bubble changes course. Time will tell.
Intel has little reason to produce ARM chips. I think they spun off their ARM business years ago due to low profit margins from what I remember.

At the moment, Intels bread and butter is Laptop and Desktop Chips, server chips. ARM does not have a foothold, or even the same performance.

The way I see it, the vast vast majority of the worlds software is written for X86, and there is no reason to abandon it.

Mobile right now is ARM, but mobile also lacks any kind of useful software or performance.
G51989 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 1, 2013, 07:04 PM   #127
greenmeanie
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: CT
I would love more options so I can dump Charter.
greenmeanie is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 07:18 AM   #128
dfuerpo
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by damir00 View Post
Drawing a blank on the last piece of Intel software I used might have been...
You're using it right now... the microcode in the Intel CPU you use.
dfuerpo is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 08:46 AM   #129
CWallace
macrumors Demi-God
 
CWallace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
According to a new story at 9to5Mac, Intel has only been able to secure one content provider and will therefore not launch at CES. Such a project, if it ever launches, is now expected no earlier than the 2nd half of 2013.

Intel wants to offer a more a la carte service and entertainment companies want significantly more money in such a scenario because their current model is to bundle popular channels with lesser known ones and sell them as a package. As an a la carte model would favor the popular channels, the entertainment companies want more money for them to offset the lost revenues from the lesser-known channels not being offered. (Much as HobeSoundDarryl has been arguing.)
CWallace is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 03:01 PM   #130
Glideslope
macrumors 68020
 
Glideslope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by G51989 View Post
I didn't under estimate them, but do they want the business? They've showed no indication of wanting the business. Apple has a tendency to screw its supplies, and its showing in a general lack of interest in building Apples chips. IBM isn't interested, Intel isn't Interested, GF has showed no interest, and TSMC rejected Apples deal.



Intel has little reason to produce ARM chips. I think they spun off their ARM business years ago due to low profit margins from what I remember.

At the moment, Intels bread and butter is Laptop and Desktop Chips, server chips. ARM does not have a foothold, or even the same performance.

The way I see it, the vast vast majority of the worlds software is written for X86, and there is no reason to abandon it.

Mobile right now is ARM, but mobile also lacks any kind of useful software or performance.
Well, looks like TSCM is ready to make a batch of A6X's from todays news.
So, I'll retract my GF opinion.

TSCM could put a fab in NY from Project Azalea. I'll bet Global Foundries would love the competition next door.

"Useful Software/Performance " is too subjective.
__________________
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. ” Sun Tzu
Glideslope is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 2, 2013, 10:11 PM   #131
MisterMe
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfuerpo View Post
You're using it right now... the microcode in the Intel CPU you use.
By definition, microcode is not software.
__________________
Neither a borrower nor a lender be
For loan oft loses both itself and friend
William Shakespeare from Hamlet
MisterMe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 10:33 AM   #132
SeaFox
macrumors 68000
 
SeaFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere Else
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMe View Post
Cable providers love digital because a single NTSC channel can transmit only one analog program stream. When repurposed to digital, however, that sample channel can transmit 27 Clear QAM or scrambled standard definition program streams.
It not the bandwidth they really like, it's the per-TV pricing and ease of add-on sales I mentioned. It's the 80's and their decoder-rental scheme all over again for them. If it was about the bandwidth they could just change to ClearQAM and be done with it. No box would be required (which would lower their support costs) and they'd still get the benefits of non-analog channel streams.
SeaFox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 02:30 PM   #133
twoodcc
macrumors P6
 
twoodcc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Right side of wrong
Send a message via AIM to twoodcc Send a message via MSN to twoodcc
i would like to see this in my city. but i do live just outside the city, so i wonder i would still get access to this?
__________________
tville
Smarter than the average bear
twoodcc is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 03:42 PM   #134
MisterMe
macrumors G4
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaFox View Post
It not the bandwidth they really like, it's the per-TV pricing and ease of add-on sales I mentioned. It's the 80's and their decoder-rental scheme all over again for them. If it was about the bandwidth they could just change to ClearQAM and be done with it. No box would be required (which would lower their support costs) and they'd still get the benefits of non-analog channel streams.
You are not paying attention. Some cable providers have done precisely what you say. It is true that other providers have taken a different tack. However, this has to do with their current transmission infrastructure and other considerations.
__________________
Neither a borrower nor a lender be
For loan oft loses both itself and friend
William Shakespeare from Hamlet
MisterMe is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 4, 2013, 08:37 PM   #135
SeaFox
macrumors 68000
 
SeaFox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere Else
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterMe View Post
You are not paying attention. Some cable providers have done precisely what you say. It is true that other providers have taken a different tack. However, this has to do with their current transmission infrastructure and other considerations.
As a cable subscriber yes I certainly have been paying attention. The entire 75 channel "basic" cable package used to be available on ClearQAM here and I recieved it fine on my TV with no converter box, but as time has gone on the number of channels available on the analog basic service has gone down, while at the same time they are being changed to encrypted feeds on the digial service. The service is still called basic cable, and doesn't include any of the digital tiers, but to get all the stations you have to get a digital box now. It's a "slippery slope" situation. Only in this case you slide uphill on your monthly bill to keep what you had before.

As for "infrastructure reasons" I can only assume you're referring to switched-digital cable. I am reminded that the only reason the original analog bandwidth isn't sufficient is because there are so many more stations now. But there's the old saying "200 channels and nothing to watch". Cutting out the cruft and reruns you could get the same amount of content on a smaller number of stations. There really is no reason for there to be as many ESPNs as there are.
SeaFox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2013, 09:26 AM   #136
wamxp1001
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
What if your TV Dreams Become Reality

There is a company who will be offering Cable TV, high speed internet and a home phone for less than what people are paying for basic cable and internet now. So the middlemen you are referring to can be and will be eliminated.. Thus your dream will soon be coming true.
wamxp1001 is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:17 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC