ActionableMango
macrumors G3
This isn't the first time Apple has dumped Nvidia and gone all AMD.
"All this has happened before. All this will happen again."
"All this has happened before. All this will happen again."
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No more nvidia chips in Apple's computer line
- Thread starter netkas
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
jblagden
macrumors 65816
ActionableMango
macrumors G3
Reportedly last time it was because Nvidia supplied a lot of GPUs with bad bump material and/or crappy solder, causing frequent and early failures that led to Apple recalls. Apple removed Nvidia from its entire lineup over the next two years.
About a year later, AMD got on Apple's bad side when they revealed a partnership a day or two prior to an Apple event. Rumor has it that Jobs got pissed, removed all mention of AMD's partnership from from the event slides, and started to bring Nvidia chips back in.
And now Nvidia is back out. I don't know why they are doing it this time. If anything, I consider the current Nvidia lineup to be much more power efficient and run cooler than AMD, things that Apple would normally value quite highly. People have speculated that AMD is offering rock-bottom prices.
So anyway, it's a lot of back and forth. I don't read too much into it and I don't think it's forever.
About a year later, AMD got on Apple's bad side when they revealed a partnership a day or two prior to an Apple event. Rumor has it that Jobs got pissed, removed all mention of AMD's partnership from from the event slides, and started to bring Nvidia chips back in.
And now Nvidia is back out. I don't know why they are doing it this time. If anything, I consider the current Nvidia lineup to be much more power efficient and run cooler than AMD, things that Apple would normally value quite highly. People have speculated that AMD is offering rock-bottom prices.
So anyway, it's a lot of back and forth. I don't read too much into it and I don't think it's forever.
You don't have to be 100% open source to use open source code in your software. Apple does use some open source software. That fact CANNOT be refuted.
Last edited:
jblagden
macrumors 65816
Right, I'm not refuting that. I have no doubt that Apple uses some open-source components. But to call OS X open-source without a modifier like "partially" is simply inaccurate because that would imply that it's 100% open-source. If OS X was completely open-source, you would be able to easily run it on an IBM Clone.
Not if part of it isn't open. A linux cool guy would know this...
AidenShaw
macrumors P6
Especially if "part of it isn't open" is really "the overwhelming majority of it isn't open".
Last edited:
You mean like whats posted in #482? Initially I said Darwin, which covers the portions of Mac OS X that is open sourced.
Duh...Darwin is the parts of Mac OSX that are open sourced. Reading more carefully you would not need a Linux guy to tell you.
Last edited:
Yes, but that alone was never an OS. You always need a lot of stuff to get an OS up.
There is a big set of drivers and libraries, which come with Darwin, cf https://opensource.apple.com/release/os-x-10105/.