IBM PPC => No Altivec?

ffakr

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2002
617
0
Chicago
Re: Re: IBM PPC => No Altivec?

I'm not saying this report wasn't poorly worded, but if we look at what was actually said, it really does sound like they were talking about Power4s, not PowerPCs.

Fact 1: IBM has announced a 64 bit PowerPC with SIMD TBA at the Microprocessor forum. IBM said PowerPC not Power4... they said the design of this PowerPC is influenced by the Power4 processor, but they didn't say it was a Power4 (they are different, though very similar architectures). Power4s can run PPC code, but PPCs do not have all the instructions of Power4s.

Fact 2: gcc has publicly released changes to their code base to accomodate a PowerPC64 with Altivec support. This isn't a rumor, it's in GCC now. Do a CVS diff to see it.

These are not rumor. They are facts. Facts from the GCC project, facts from IBM themselves.

Now look at what is actually in this report...

I asked the presenter (a chief engineering manager from IBM) about the Power4 derivative for desktops and low end servers
OK, either poorly written, or he asked and got an answer about a Power4 derivative (a new Power4). IBM has told the Microprocessor Report that this is a PowerPC with design cues from the Power4. In my book, A sky scraper with a gradual sloped roof and big flower pots is definately taking cues from Frank Lloyd Wright, but it sure isn't a derivatve of a prarie house. This is, to me, a big difference.

prevent AltiVec from ever marrying with Power4 or its successors
Um, once again, IBM has stated this is not a Power4, it is a PowerPC. Either this is sloppy prose, or the IBM engineer was talking about a different processor. He of all people should know the difference between a PowerPC and a Power4.

they have pitched the desktop Power4 to Apple, but Apple was not interested
Once again, IBM has said the upcomming announcement is not a Power4. The chip we are really talking about is a PowerPC.

Basically, whether or not this person intended to ask about a PowerPC or a Power4, it appears that the IBM engineer responded with answers about's Apple's interest in the Power4.
 

Thresher

macrumors member
Aug 30, 2002
53
88
You've parsed that statement pretty carefully, but I can't disagree with you at all.

I've found in my brief status as a Mac fan that you HAVE to parse statements regarding Apple VERY carefully. If you don't ask the question precisely, you don't get an accurate answer.
 

Kid Red

macrumors 65816
Dec 14, 2001
1,379
87
Originally posted by bertinman


Umm, why don't people see the "marklar" thing as a joke... as it should be.

I am assuming that by "X" you mean OSX? well, that has NEVER been on an intel machine. why you ask? Altivec is not on a i386 machine.

I think people are confused because there has been something called "X" for quite some time in the UNIX/Linux world. It is an windows server (not MS windows just windows as in a command/graphical/what-not windows), KDE, Gnome and whatever else window managers you like are loaded on top and make quite useful/pretty desktop for Linux/UNIX gurus. Check out www.XFree86.com and you'll see it's not a brand new program. Also, if you want to use it on your Mac, go ahead its available through Apple free of charge (JOIN ADC FREE!).

So, in closing--I have Marklar/Darwin-x86 right here next to me running "X."
It is a Athlon 1gig that is happily saying "Welcome to Macintosh!" "login:" -- WOW.

Oh wait I lied, one more thing. Join any mailing list for darwin and search the archives ther will be at least one message thread about making Aqua (everyone’s favorite operating system which runs with Darwin at it's core) run on an i386 (intel compatible) machine--all saying that it is close to impossible and/or not worth it.

-- bert :cool:
uh, wrong. Apple has had X on Intel for quite sometime now. There is an article at MacNN that discusses this very issue. Also, Apple may be ready to switch to an AMD processor by this time next year if IBM or Moto don't follow thru.

There is no confusion with "X" running on Intel.
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Originally posted by Cappy
People have a hard time accepting this but if Apple announced x86 support tomorrow, their stock would likely take a nasty beating. I actually want to see x86 support for the most part but I don't feel Apple is in any position to pull that off at the moment. Maybe 2-3 years.

My opinion is just the opposite: I think if Apple were to announce x86 support tomorrow, their stock would go through the roof. Analysts are not the smartest people in the world when it comes to high-tech. They hear the word "Intel" and they think of things like "market leader," "unstoppable juggernaut," "nobody ever got fired for buying Intel," etc., and it makes them all cozy and happy. They understand terms like "core competency" and "value added" and so on, but they do not necessarily understand such concepts as why more gigahertz does not necessarily mean better performance. Therefore, when they hear of Apple announcing that OS X will run on x86, they will think, "Great! Finally Apple's operating system will be married to a CPU with lots of gigahertz! Outlook: Good."

However, that said, I would not like to see Apple have anything to do with x86, ever, and I do realize "ever" is a strong word...
They've got to keep MS onboard with Office long enough to create a version that would run on x86 as well as PPC. That alone could sell copies of Mac OS X and Office X to businesses out the whazoo. They don't have to throw out their hardware investment then.
The x86 architecture is fast enough now that, AltiVec aside, it could probably run such apps as Office.X without a crippling speed penalty, if Apple wanted to put for the necessary effort writing a suitable PPC emulation layer for an x86 OS X.

I also don't think the Office.X-x86-Mac OS X combination would be incredibly appealing to businesses. Sure, they can run OS X on the machines they already have, but why should they?

1) They've already paid for Windows
2) The conception still exists (mostly rightfully so) that Windows is what software that businesses use runs on
3) "Nobody ever got fired for buying Wintel"
4) Lots of people have gotten fired (or at least laughed at) for even mentioning anything having to do with Macs
5) Windows is what people know; OS X would require massive retraining of personnel
6) OS X is unproven and its future is uncertain, whereas everybody knows with absolute certainty that Microsoft and Windows will be around for a long long long time
7) Everybody else uses Windows, so why shouldn't we
8) Windows is faster
9) Win2k is more professional looking; OS X's interface looks like a toy to business managers

All these points have been constantly reinforced for the past decade plus, and they aren't going to go away anytime soon. Basically, I do think OS X on x86 could suit plenty of businesses, but the same thing was said about OS/2, and I don't envision OS X making a big dent in the business world anytime in the near future, x86 or not.

Alex
 

alex_ant

macrumors 68020
Feb 5, 2002
2,473
0
All up in your bidness
Re: Re: Re: IBM PPC => No Altivec?

Originally posted by ffakr
Now look at what is actually in this report...
I asked the presenter (a chief engineering manager from IBM) about the Power4 derivative for desktops and low end servers
OK, either poorly written, or he asked and got an answer about a Power4 derivative (a new Power4). IBM has told the Microprocessor Report that this is a PowerPC with design cues from the Power4. In my book, A sky scraper with a gradual sloped roof and big flower pots is definately taking cues from Frank Lloyd Wright, but it sure isn't a derivatve of a prarie house. This is, to me, a big difference.

Well, "derivative" = "derived from." You could say that that skyscraper is a derivative of a prarie house if it actually was derived from a prairie house, even in the smallest way, and even if nothing about it resembles a prairie house. This new desktop PowerPC could be called a Power4 derivative if it was derived even in the slightest from the Power4. It could also be called a Power4 successor if it did in fact come along after the Power4 (although to say that would be kind of misleading).

I don't think this is sloppy prose - it just demands careful reading. This part:
Furthermore, the guy came right out and said that they have pitched the desktop Power4 to Apple, but Apple was not interested.
Makes it very clear which CPU both the author and the marketing guy are referring to. IBM would have never pitched the actual Power4 to Apple.

Once again, IBM has said the upcomming announcement is not a Power4. The chip we are really talking about is a PowerPC.

Basically, whether or not this person intended to ask about a PowerPC or a Power4, it appears that the IBM engineer responded with answers about's Apple's interest in the Power4.
I agree with you here. Something has to be not right about this report. Perhaps the IBM engineering manager misinterpreted the questions, or relayed misinformation he was given, or perhaps he simply talked out of his arse. I was just picking nits. :)

Alex
 

reyesmac

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
374
53
Central Texas
Forget the x86 mac, its yesterdays technology

I don't see Apple going x86 if G4's can handle all the products that will come out of all the 3D companies they bought. That being said, I think Apple would do more to please its customers if it would just offer the Macs it sells with only the high end stuff. If they cared about giving us the most speed, why don't they offer all their macs with the best video card and hard drives at $1.7k-2.5k-and 3.3k? Why do we have to settle for 16x speed burners? If we are paying so much, why not give us even a single processor 867mhz mac with Gforce Ti and a 100 or 133 raid and a 40x burner for $1700? I sure would not complaine about the speed if I got all that! But not only do we have to buy Macs that don't run OS X as snappy as PC's run Windows (don't say Quartz Extreme because a PC user could actually upgrade its hardware to use new technologys for the price of a single Mac video card, plus, I shouldnt have to buy a new system just to have a speedy finder, I should have the option of using a less alpha channel using GUI). The most important thing I need is for the windows to move around as fast or faster than they move on my BW G3. That machine what bought at a time when Apple was selling their hardware for 1.5k up to 3k.

I think if Apple does not get more in line with were the hardware industry is going it will be left behind. The industry is making faster computers at lower prices, thats why the price of high end PC's gets lower every few years. Remember, since they make the whole widget, if they are going to be the best platform, they have to compete on the software side and the hardware side. If they don't beat the competition or at least be as good for the same price, then they are not the best, and I refuse to accept that the Mac is not the best for what it does. Heck, if they had G4's that were clocked at 2.4 ghz and prices as cheap as PC's, would there even be any doubt as to who was the best computer maker in this galaxy? There must be something very bad going on in Cupertino for them not to come out with faster machines by now. They know if they impress us Mac users, we would sell our cars to afford their products. What they are offering us is not the best that is possible, something is stopping them? Are they waiting for some sort of contract with Motorola to end? I don't know but if the worst is not behind us then there will be some dark days ahead indeed.

If Apple does not learn that it cannot offer its computers at the price it currently does, it will learn it the hard way, and with our marketshare, that would be disasterous.
 

bertinman

macrumors 6502
Jul 24, 2002
272
0
Davis, CA
Originally posted by Kid Red


uh, wrong. Apple has had X on Intel for quite sometime now. There is an article at MacNN that discusses this very issue. Also, Apple may be ready to switch to an AMD processor by this time next year if IBM or Moto don't follow thru.

There is no confusion with "X" running on Intel.
Please scroll up about 5 hours... thanks :)

Plus:
All is cool DaveGee :cool:

-- bert :cool:
 

bretm

macrumors 68000
Apr 12, 2002
1,951
27
Originally posted by LethalWolfe



Hollywood has been using Mac hardware (running Avid software)for years and years and years. Apple is now trying to take over post production on the software side of things too (and they are making a good run at it). I've seen post houses "make the switch" but that was from Avid to FCP. I've never seen a post house edit using a PC. Apple hardware has always been a staple in post production (and will be for a long time) and they are now trying to make their software equally as popular.


Lethal
The post production market made the switch to NT 4 years ago. Avid quit development for a time on their mac systems. Today, Avid DS and Symphony still don't operate on macs (those are the high end ones that hollywood uses) and their low end avid xpress DV wasn't released on mac until version 3.5 just a few months ago. The composer line just recently came in sync with the nt versions.

4 years ago the G3s came out without enough slots for Avids so Avid almost ditched 'em completely. I think Apple wanted them to myself so all the loyal mac avid users would switch to FCP (which was waiting to be announced). I think Avid figured this out, backtracked, and changed their mind. They didn't want to look like the bad guy. But the mac loyalty is almost completely dead in the avid world.

The Avid user base is really small anyway. I think Apple could care less. Although they should. There's only 50-100 thousand avids out there. That doesn't include all the other support computers at the post houses and all the computers the editors buy for their homes.
 

edenwaith

macrumors 6502a
Aug 7, 2001
687
86
OS X on PCs

Here is a line from the book "Building Cocoa Applications" on page 279:

"Very little of Mach and Mac OS X are written in the PowerPC's native assembly language. As a result, Mac OS X can easily be ported to other microprocessors simply by recompiling the system and rewriting a small number of device drivers."

If this holds true, then, yes, Mac OS X can appear on an Intel-based PC. Also, I've heard that there have been early builds of Darwin on PCs. Even if Mac OS X is ported successfully over to PCs, here are some reasons Apple may or may not want to do it.

In the early 1990's, they had their Star Trek project which ported OS 7 to a PC, and it was successful earlier on. One downside at the time was OS 7 ran faster than the new PowerPC chips that Apple was trying to transition over to at the time. Very bad sign for their hardware company if the OS ran faster on PC hardware. Granted, I don't know of any results which have seen or tested OS X or Darwin on a PC vs. a Mac. What if the same even occurred and the PC hardware ran faster? Once again, this wouldn't be good news to Apple's hardware department. Unless they drastically switch their goals and become more of a software company than a hardware company, porting OS X to a PC would not be good financially.

Also, there would be the problem of successfully porting their OS to PCs, with the multitude of hardware out there. Look at Linux. One challenge is to get as much hardware, new and old, to run with the OS. If Apple decided to license OS X only to particular computer manufacturers who would build systems that were guaranteed to work with OS X, then that might be their start into breaching the PC world. But would that be enough, or should they then spend more development time in building drivers (or catering to 3rd party hardware manufacturers) to create drivers for OS X.

I suppose, what Apple is ideally going for is more PCs users to drop their Dells and their Windows, and buy Mac hardware and Mac software, bringing money into Apple from two sides. But as we've seen in the case of Microsoft, huge profits can be garnered from software sales since the physical costs of software are quite low, especially in comparison to hardware. A few manuals and CDs probably cost a few bucks at most, and considering the high cost of MS's software, the company from Redmond is making a nice little profit with each sale.
 

chickenlittle

macrumors newbie
Sep 6, 2002
1
0
...the sky is falling, the sky is falling! Some guy from somewhere said some other guy said that he talked to a guy that said Apple wasn't gonna use the Power4 derivative!

:rolleyes:

This must mean Apple just doesn't care about performance. They are just looking to milk us suckers out of more cash. I mean, look how little progress they made with OS X 10.0 to 10.2 in 18 months. BASTARDS!!!!!

GMAFB. Apple is actively seeking a resolution to the performance issue. It will be resolved in due time. This mamby pamby chicken little BS is getting really fscking tired.
 

TyleRomeo

macrumors 6502a
Mar 22, 2002
888
0
New York
Originally posted by e-coli



Funny. I've been doing the Audi spots for years, and they're all done on NT based Avids.

When we bought our uncompressed stations, a decent Mac version wasn't available yet.

Different strokes for different houses, I guess. But you can't make the assumption that ALL high-end editing and finishing is done on Macs, because it isn't. That was the point of my original post. You missed it.

BTW, Unity isn't an editing system. It's a media management tool. :rolleyes:

...and just FYI, MTV is famous for not using uncompressed high-end editing. As a matter of fact, they frequently use the DV or DVC codec. Hardly high-end. ;)
Different strokes for different folks. I have never come across a place that chooses to uise PCs over Macs is what I'm saying. OHH AND THE MTV GUYS USE DIGIBETA, is that good for you?

tyler
 

ibjoshua

macrumors 6502a
Jan 17, 2002
607
19
New Zealand
Re: OS X on PCs

Originally posted by edenwaith
Here is a line from the book "Building Cocoa Applications" on page 279:

"Very little of Mach and Mac OS X are written in the PowerPC's native assembly language. As a result, Mac OS X can easily be ported to other microprocessors simply by recompiling the system and rewriting a small number of device drivers."
that is very interesting but it doesn't address the issue of all the carbon code out there.

If this holds true, then, yes, Mac OS X can appear on an Intel-based PC. Also, I've heard that there have been early builds of Darwin on PCs. Even if Mac OS X is ported successfully over to PCs, ...
okay let's get this one straight. if you believe this eWeek article then it has not only been done but they (Apple) have the latest cut of 10.2 running on x86 processors. In fact the OSX developers frequently get asked to make changes to keep the OS compatible with x86.

... Also, there would be the problem of successfully porting their OS to PCs, with the multitude of hardware out there. Look at Linux. One challenge is to get as much hardware, new and old, to run with the OS. If Apple decided to license OS X only to particular computer manufacturers who would build systems that were guaranteed to work with OS X, then that might be their start into breaching the PC world. But would that be enough, or should they then spend more development time in building drivers (or catering to 3rd party hardware manufacturers) to create drivers for OS X.
i don't believe any 'reliable' sources said anything about porting OS X to PCs just using x86 chips in macs.


I suppose, what Apple is ideally going for is more PCs users to drop their Dells and their Windows, and buy Mac hardware and Mac software, bringing money into Apple from two sides.
bingo!. think you might have hit on something there. :)

But as we've seen in the case of Microsoft, huge profits can be garnered from software sales since the physical costs of software are quite low, especially in comparison to hardware. A few manuals and CDs probably cost a few bucks at most, and considering the high cost of MS's software, the company from Redmond is making a nice little profit with each sale.
valid point but i don't thank Apple would ever get out of hardware design. who in their right mind would go head on with MS??
 

ibjoshua

macrumors 6502a
Jan 17, 2002
607
19
New Zealand
post script:

i don't think Apple will ever go down the clone road again. it just didn't work. who'd want to get undercut by a bunch of inferior products on the hardware side of the business only to then have the software guys have to support all the 'non-standard' configurations?
 
BS

I said this Power4 stuff was BS, and if this guy's testimony is valid, I was right.

Maybe this was referring to the Power4 and not a modified PPC based on the Power4. I don't know. Maybe Apple declined the offer because they do have something up their sleeve that's unbelievable. Of course I have nothing authoritative to offer on that front.

But what I can say is this: every few months I hear some new, incredible rumor. It promises something near-unimaginable on the horizon, something that every Mac fanatic raves will bury the Wintel duopoly once and for all.

How long have I been hearing this stuff? For years. The original Power PC chip was supposed to accomplish this overthrow 9 years ago. Then OS X was. Then the G4 chip, with its altivec instruction set, was. There have been other false promises in between, if memory serves. They've all consistently led to the following:

a) Disappointment on the parts of some Mac fans, who usually threaten to leave the Mac platform once and for all and / or preach its imminent doom;

b) Mac apologists who do just the opposite and make excuses for the disappointment, then latch on to the next too-good-to-be-true false promise / rumor and begin waving the Mac flag in their drooling, Apple's-going-to-conquer-the-world-someday patriotism once again.

I feel like I'm the only one who actually perceives this cycle and is sick of it. It's a joke. People, save yourselves the emotional energy and mental "blue balls" and wait to see what actually transpires. And do not base purchasing decisions on rumors, particularly those that seem too good to be true. I bought a Mac in 1999 because I heard that OS X was coming out in Jan 2000. How long did I have to wait for it to be finally released?!? Just a case in point.

Folks, if you need super speed, don't hope for the Mac to come out with a 2GHz G5 next January. It ain't gonna happen. Get a fast PC because that is what is available now. Trash all hopes you have in vaporware. And if you don't need speed, then the Mac is a wonderful box that can do many consumer-oriented things quite elegantly (PC World's recent home DV editing articles attesting to that).

Okay, I stand ready to weather your flames.
 

ibjoshua

macrumors 6502a
Jan 17, 2002
607
19
New Zealand
I feel like I'm the only one who actually perceives this cycle and is sick of it. It's a joke. People, save yourselves the emotional energy and mental "blue balls" and wait to see what actually transpires. And do not base purchasing decisions on rumors, particularly those that seem too good to be true. I bought a Mac in 1999 because I heard that OS X was coming out in Jan 2000. How long did I have to wait for it to be finally released?!? Just a case in point.
no you're not the only one and you're not the only one who feels it's necessary to go into long diatribes about everyone else on these forums either.

the site you are currently reading is called macrumors. that's what it's all about fella, rumors.
 

iwantanewmac

macrumors 6502
Oct 24, 2001
356
0
I know what they have in store for the future.......
Incredibly meager updates 2 times a year and they will hit 2 GHZ in 2004.
Sounds like an apple strategy to me :)
 

pc_convert?

macrumors regular
Jan 18, 2002
171
0
UK
It all sounds like BS to me.

Quoting from MacRumors in July
Steve Jobs: "The roadmap on the PowerPC actually looks pretty good and there are some advantages to it. As an example, the PowerPC has something in it called AltiVec, we call the Velocity Engine -- it's a vector engine -- it dramatically accelerates media, much better than, as an example, the Intel processors or the AMD processors... so we actually eke out a fair amount of performance from these things when all is said and done. And the roadmap looks pretty good. Now, as you point out, once our transition to Mac OS 10 is complete, which I expect will be around the end of this year or sometime early next year and we get the top 20% of our installed base running 10, and I think the next 20 will come very rapidly after that. Then we'll have options, then we'll have options and we like to have options. But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent.
Personally I put more trust in what Steve says rather than a public posting by Joe Shmo...

Steve like options...so they dismiss a Power4 derivative...sounds really plausible.

Catch that bit at the end?
But right now, between Motorola and IBM, the roadmap looks pretty decent.
I think that sums it up.
 

g21

macrumors newbie
Sep 7, 2002
6
0
London England
Thanks Bretm, you're absolutely right - though I'd say mac loyalty still exists among editors, they just haven't had much of a choice of late!

I work in ads and videos in London. Here you find a lot of Avid Symphony on-lines running uncompressed video on NTs, and a lot of off-line Avids running on unbelievably ancient macs. Avids running on G4s are extremely rare, and trying to find an Avid that will talk to a firewire drive is hell on earth. FCP is starting to attract some interest, but while it's very cute, and MUCH cheaper, it's not yet quite as refined and productive to use as Avid Media Composer - but that's another story.

If Apple wants to compete in the professional post market, what it really needs to do is run Shake - or even After Effects - on something that's as least as fast as Smoke, Flame and Inferno, which run on SGIs and are the industry standard for a lot of this work. I don't have the comparative benchmarks (does anyone know the answer?), but ideally I'd like to see a mac running 2-3 times faster to do this kind of work. Realistically though, you have to note that these Flame systems are hugely more expensive. In practice, running AE on a new dual 1ghz is a surprisingly pleasant experience. Apple should do well in the editing market with current hardware, and if they could come up with something a couple of times faster at this kind of price level, they will sell A LOT of hardware in the professional compositing and effects market. Even some kind of external render farm or PCI card would do the trick.
 

QuiteSure

macrumors 6502
Jun 20, 2002
474
43
This is good news!

Someone from IBM says that Apple has declined to use the Power4 chip for its products. Possible interpretations:

1. The statement is correct and Apple has another plan. This is good news. Let's hope Apple reveals itself soon.

2. The statement is correct and Apple is run by idiots. I don't have any reason to believe that this is true. It doesn't appear to me from recent history that Apple is run by idiots.

3. The statement is incorrect and Apple is actually going to use the Power4 chip. This is good news, Apple simply employing more misdirection.

4. The statement is incorrect and the discussion with Apple never existed. This is neutral. I can go back to sleep.

L' shana tova!
 

dekator

macrumors regular
May 18, 2002
178
0
Krautistan
Oh no....

What horse will Apple bet on ?
Apple has done a lot of things right lately... and yes, it's not about MHz. But Apple *needs* more powerful machines. Their loyal users (and others) know it isn't just about MHz but still, more power is needed.
It's ironic: In order to keep up in terms of performance Apple jumped on the AltiVec train. It has become dependent on it (optimizing code for it) so that Apple apps can keep up in performance with Wintel ones. Now, already the AltiVec train is derailing... Apple, I know it's a pain to re-optimize and retreat from the AltiVec hype... but you should jump off that train *now* before it takes you with it down into the abyss.
Apple, don't shoot yourself in the foot again... one (hardware) is already getting limp...
 

luiss

macrumors newbie
Jul 2, 2002
27
5
G3/G4 to IBM PPC Migration vs. x86

Many comments seem to imply that since IBM's 'PowerPC' vector unit is not compatible it would be easier for Apple to just go to x86.
Mac OS X currently runs on G3s, with no velocity engine. If Apple were to use a PowerPC processor from IBM, it would simply use the non-Altivec code path for executing code, until Apple and 3rd parties recompile. Seems like a much better migration story than needing new binary versions of everything for running on x86.
 

DaveGee

macrumors 6502a
Jul 25, 2001
677
2
Re: This is good news!

Originally posted by QuiteSure
Someone from IBM says that Apple has declined to use the Power4 chip for its products. Possible interpretations:

1. The statement is correct and Apple has another plan. This is good news. Let's hope Apple reveals itself soon.

2. The statement is correct and Apple is run by idiots. I don't have any reason to believe that this is true. It doesn't appear to me from recent history that Apple is run by idiots.

3. The statement is incorrect and Apple is actually going to use the Power4 chip. This is good news, Apple simply employing more misdirection.

4. The statement is incorrect and the discussion with Apple never existed. This is neutral. I can go back to sleep.

L' shana tova!

QuiteSure,

There is atleast one more and one that wouldn't make the comments from the IBM rep a total lie. One that I think is pretty close to the truth...

Someone from IBM says that Apple has declined to use the Power4 chip for its products. Possible interpretations:

5. The statement WAS true at a given point in time....

Just something to think about...

Dave
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
386
2
I just find it fascinating that people are so hung up on this that they're parsing what someone stated they heard from someone else who stated what they heard from someone else who stated what someone else heard. How much farther might that go beyond what's being posted?

How in the freaking world can you "factually" derive anything from that?!?!?!

C'mon people...parsing posts and breaking them down can look cool and impressive but just because it's posted on the internet doesn't mean it's true.
 

Cappy

macrumors 6502
May 29, 2002
386
2
Originally posted by Kid Red


uh, wrong. Apple has had X on Intel for quite sometime now. There is an article at MacNN that discusses this very issue. Also, Apple may be ready to switch to an AMD processor by this time next year if IBM or Moto don't follow thru.

There is no confusion with "X" running on Intel.
Again...just because it's posted on the internet does not mean it's true.