Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, May 23, 2005.
Link: Why Apple Won't Embrace Intel
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
Good article. If history holds true, we're going to see another significant shake-up in the Macs soon - something on the scale of the PowerMac G5 introduction, I would think. Maybe at WWDC?
Hmmm, that's quite interesting. I'm looking forward to these upcoming events (WWDC etc)
Watch this space.
whats to say this isnt just preping the news for something big to happen at WWDC in a week or 2 ?
seriously, between tiger, the refresh of the powermac and imac allready happening, the only thing left to update this year is the laptop lines
which to my knowledge are hurting right now
nothing would be better than having everyone in press showing up for WWDC when they release the extreamly anticipated G5 powerbook, would definately make fox, cnn, msnbc news
and i dont agree with IBM having a hard time producing this chip
we have seen liquid cooling in G5's, we have now seen metal based liquid cooling on ATI video cards we have seen a G5 in a iMac thats all of 2 inches thick
with a few heat sensors, some voltage control, why couldnt a G5 be put in a powerbook, when on battery / runs at half power, when on power, it jacks it up
or even a dual core chip ? run both core's at a 1/4 of thier max speed, thatll consume minimal power and heat
theres a time and place for everything, i think the G5 powerbook is 100% possible, but is a: IBM ready for the demand (im friken buying one) and b: is Apple ready to discontinue a laptop line thats worked (fine?) for the last 3 or 4 years
I seem to remember a post in the Macrumors forum where someone with a friend at Apple claimed that a new line of Macs (xStation) with quad processor setup will be unveiled at WWDC. Now if these processors are higher specced than the current crop of G5s, say dual cores, totalling 8 cores, they should provide a powerful punch.
In the light of the recent disappointing PM upgrades Apple really need a computer that moves them back into high power territory.
I don't think it's going to happen.
Apple move to x86 when we're right in the middle of a surge of announcements of other products (specifically, all three game-console makers) switching to PPC? I don't think so.
But let's assume, for the sake of argument, that they were considering a move to x86. I think under that circumstance, they would select AMD, not Intel as their supplier. After all, AMD provides chips of equal performance at much lower cost and power consumption. Given Apple's obsession with keeping the systems quiet, the lower power means slower fans. And the lower cost helps keep the systems priced reasonably.
But I still don't think it's going to happen, with either Intel or AMD.
Agreed. I don't think it'll happen. There's more going on than meets the eye. Steve is pissed at IBM for not delivering 3ghz. He's pissed that IBM's moving resources to Sony and Microsoft. He's probably pissed that there's no mobile (small, fast, cool) G5 chip in sight. What's a fella to do?
Apple will buy Freescale.
It makes sense. They design and manufacture chips. That's an element that Steve wants to own. Freescale is affordable. They're just beginning to do OK in the marketplace (stock is up, revenue is up) so timing is good.
Market penetration requires a number of components.
1 - better, more features (works better)
2 - lower cost
3 - efficient distribution
Apple is making modest headway against the Wintel monopoly, but it's probably nothing like Steve dreams of at night. 2% market share? 5% market share? 10% market share? Who cares? Microsoft is 90%.
For #1, Tiger wins but doesn't have distribution to compete with the Wintel monopoly.
For #2, Mac hardware costs might be somewhat lower, but not low enough to attract big numbers (growing numbers, perhaps).
For #3, it's Apple against the rest of the Wintel world. While Apple might be efficient as a product seller, it competes against many others who are also efficient.
There's diminishing returns there... UNLESS... you own the whole ball of wax. Software. Hardware. Design. Chips. And not just CPU chips. Motherboard chips. NexGen WiFi chips. H.264 hardware compression chips.
Steve wants to buy Freescale.
I hope we never do. Down with WinTel!
Keep in mind that the XStation rumors have been around for a a long time...
that doesn't even begin to make sense. there is no long term benefit of apple buying freescale. i'm sure apple is not pissed about IBM paying attention to other customers its the nature of business. Its in IBMs self interest to improve speeds of g5 and solve cooling issues for portables. Apple isn't the only one looking for cooler more powerful chips.
recompiling software making people switch after the long switch from os9 to X is a horrible mistake. It won't happen not any time soon.
In terms of cooling, the iMac is 2 inches thick, like you stated. Its only 1" to you, but its 2x as much room to play with for Apple in terms of dealing with heat. Also notice how the iMac isn't the size of the screen. There is overhang at the bottom (where you see the Apple logo), which increases the volume inside and helps with dealing with the heat.
I think maybe Apple COULD make a 15" iMac, but that would be stretching it right now unless IBM made physical modifications to the G5.
If they put something like that in the PB, you would only be able to make a 17" PB, and it would have to be thicker than 1". You definitely wouldn't be able to make the 12" Powerbook, either, which is the best selling Powerbook.
And running both cores at 1/4 of the max speed? May as well stick with the G4. I know that the G4 is slowed down in the Powerbook already when using battery power, but I really don't think that running 2 cores at a very very slow speed would help performance.
I don't think IBM is going to be able to put the G5 in the Powerbook, but I'm hoping Freescale will put the dual core G4 in there. At least that's believable.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way that the G4s slow down on battery is when you set the energy settings to such..."reduced."