Originally posted by ddtlm
ffakr:
Apple has done no better, since they too have very few chipsets and very few motherboards that are upgradable. As I pointed out, those that are upgradable are only upgradable because people reverse engineer what Apple has done, not because Apple wants upgrades. Also, the upgradability of Apple computers has been helped by the insignificant technology changes from generation to generation, whereas Intel and AMD regularly add faster RAM and FSB's that make backwards compatibility difficult.
There is a subtle difference here that you do not realize. I shudder to mention this because this point is very subjective.
Intel and AMD do not make computers. They make computer components. In fact, they make computer components that are designed to be modular and upgradeable. This is their business model, this is what they do. ...so much so, that you can go to any major electronics/computer store and purchase a retail version of their chips that are marketed to lay-users.
Apple makes computers... from the ground up, plain and simple. They are not in the business of selling upgrades, they are not in the business of selling parts. If you want a Mac, you buy a mac.
This doesn't mean that Apple has a right to screw users, this is just the way they do business... black and white.
Apple, however, doesn't seem to consistently go through systematic and regular changes that lock out old hardware... Notice I say regular changes. There are exceptions to this rule which I will note:
Apple's Bad Design Decisions
- Putting the firmware on the processor card for older iMac models
- possibly locking out upgrade vendors from receiving processors faster than 500MHz
- Locking out Pre-G3 Macs from OS X installations
Of these... I can't verify the second item, but i suggest Apple and Motorola conspired against upgrade vendors.
I also understand and support the last point. This was a decision based on support, allocation of limited resources, and of course the desire to push upgrades. OS 9 was (and still is) supported long after the OS X release however so Apple did not simply abandon older machines.
To restate: the vast majority of modern Macs have soldered-on processors,
this is NOT the case. All G4s, Blue and white G3s, Beige G3s, CRT iMacs, All PCI pre-g3s except the 7200 and some performas (7300, 7500, 7600, 8500, 8600, 9500, 9600) had either socketed or slotted processors. This is a fact. I haven't opened an eMac up and I haven't opened an LCD iMac in a long time so I can't comment on those. I think you are incorrect in stating that "the vast majority" of modern Macs have soldered on processors.
and those where this is not the case, they are upgradable only because people reverse engineer what Apple has done.
yes, because Apple isn't in the business of selling parts or upgrades... doh. When Apple starts selling upgrade processor cards that only work in
very recent Macs, then you can make a valid comparison to Intel.
These upgrades sell only because Apple does not progress quickly enough to make them uninteresting to Apple owners.
And of course because people don't want to toss their hardware investment just to have a reasonable word processor around
So, you can't argue that Intel doesn't try to intentionally make their hardware obsolete at regular intervals so you've moved the argument to ... 'well Apple is just as bad'.
My assertion still stands... Intel designs hardware with the full knowledge and intention to make a non-compatable upgrade in the near future.
Apple doesn't plan to make their hardware upgradeable, but the EASE with which you can upgrade an older Macintosh makes a VERY strong argument that they do not intentionally design hardware so that it can't be upgraded later on. Ah... do you see the implications here?
Apple's didn't nescessarily design their machines for upgrades, but they haven't consistently designed their machiens so that they CAN'T be upgraded... quite the contrary, older Macs have proven to be very easy to upgrade. Architectures that support multiple processors on one card or zif module... Architectures that allow users to drop in upgrades without intentional bios incompatabilities...
Irregardless, the entire Apple issue is moot... the 970 issue is completely outside the realm of my contentions since that is an entirely ISA, it is only a cousin of the existing PPCs. The point has always been whether or not Intel has been screwing people over... I still haven't seen an argument to refute this contention.
My Asus Athlon motherboard (athlon) is great, but the last bios revision won't support any clock speed over 1300MHz. Other boards with my chipset support higher multipliers. Did they design it with the expectation that the K7 would never scale past 1.3GHz? Is there a limitation in that rev of the chipset? Is this an intentional decision in BIOS design to force me to upgrade? I can't say for certain, but it is suspicious, and I did almost upgrade it the last time I added new components to my box.
