macuser05 said:
Road Maps mean nothing. MS has road maps into the future and they can't even meet them. RM's are nice to show a general guideline where you are going, but influence few decisions. I know we never look at them when we buy servers. We tend to buy what the vendor reccomends/requires for their product. On the PC side, desktops are a commodity, so it doesn't matter.
If road maps didn't mean anything then people would not have been saving money and anticipating the release of Dual core CPU's, roadmaps give us a glimpse into the future and show us the the company has a plan ...also eases the nerves of reviewers , analyst and stock holders.
macuser05 said:
Peee-M is so overrated, it's not funny. I've used them and am, to say the least underwhelmed. They run relatively cool but offer little/no performance increases in day to day work.
It will get spanked by AMD's offerings, just like all the other Intel chips do today.
you have just lost all credibility with you ignorant remark , the Pentium M is just the best notebook CPU ever made and as an AMD fan I can admit. it can match the Athlon 64 clock 4 clock and at lower wattage and voltage.it's main weakness is it's floating point perfromance if not for that it would be bye bye Athlon 64.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2129&p=7
macuser05 said:
What's in this for Intel too? Nothing much I can see - Apple has the same problem with Intel that they do with IBM. AMD would make much more sense as it would be a relatively huge increase for them.
I already answered this question on another post, I'll sum it up. Intel is like Apple and M$ in the sense that they are all Publicity whores. Intel dosen't need Apples money , but they get a Shiny new Pony to show off called Apple , since all the other Pony's (M$,Sony,Nintendo) went PPC. Intel can advertise the crap outta this and show off shiny new Powerbooks and powemacs in thier commercials. Al the stupid consumers(dell buyers) wil gobble it up cuz Apple is super cool to everyone and now feature Intel.
macuser05 said:
You're forgetting M$'s ace in the hole - Office. If this were to happen watch:
1) Office for Mac disappear
2) Office for PC having a "service Pack" that disables the ability to run on Apple's hardware (They did this before with Windows on DR-DOS.)
We won'tt even discuss how LongDump could be made to cripple Apple's machines.
Most of
this was\ tried with BeOS a couple years ago with 1 vendor (Toshiba, IIRC) producing dual boot laptops. On first boot, you could pick to load either Be or Win. MS found out and yanked their OEM license for Windows. BeOS suddenly disappeared.
Ever herd of codeweavers , the Linux boys have been running office forever , i don't remember seeing MS Office for linux on sale.
http://www.codeweavers.com/
Im sure Apple can develop something like classic mode to run the windows apps till everthing gets ported.
Lastly , a million and one businesses wish Office would just die , but they are prisnor to it. Thier are so many incompatibility issues with version to version , and to many file formats to name. Office is aone big mess of a program just like Windows. If apple offered a vible alternative people on a superior platform for less money people would bite.
as far as OEM license , it is well known that Dell , HP , Gateway and Sony want OSX. M$ can't bully the hardware Industry anymore especially with it's weakened position. They all are sick of Gates and his winblows. If they want it , it will happen. they will push it.
A perfect example is Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD. most of all the big hardware vendors support Blu-ray and this is why it will win in the end. They will flood the market with Blu-ray drives and before you know it , it's in everyone PC. how can HD-DVD fight that. same goes with OSX. those 4 companies I just mentioned control over 80% of the retail market , if they put out OSX in just half thier PC lines the adoption rate wil be phenomenal. You can add Wal-Mart to that list to.
macuser05 said:
But AMD's CPU's are generally cheaper, more reliable, and FASTER than Intel. It's been going on for years. Not to mention, Intel is the king of Paper Launches. Look at the Pee4 Emergency Edition - launch it on paper, ship it a couple months later.
No resources are unlimited and Intel has been had its own yeild issues in the past along with the rest of the industry.
A partnership with AMD would make the most sense - the best chips, the best performance and lower cost.
Best Desktop chip, yes. what about notebook, thats Apple's bread and butter 2nd to iPod. They sell more notebooks than anything. and the Turion 64 is not a real solution as it still runs too hot to fit into a 1.1in case.
As far as price is concerned. this is true when it comes to single core, however single core will be all but dead in the next 18-24 months except in the lowend PC market. last I checked those Athlon X2's start at $579,while the Pentium D 820(dual 2.8ghz) Starts at $241. That over 55% less. so you lose that argument . and AMD has just given the market right back to intel by shooting itself in the foot with a pricey CPU.
macuser05 said:
Have you been on Earth long? The Athlon killed the P3 and P4 back in the day. The P4's launch was a joke as it even got spanked by a P3. In recent iterations, the P4 has been better, but it still has a hard time keeping pace with the Athlons and AMD 64's. That's a fact.
On the Server side, the Opteron has been a great contender and has spanked Xeons at many things, especially things like database serving.
Intel has few compelling and fast chips - the Peee-M is a decent design (based off the P3 core) - Apple would be better served by using AMD. Intel never really made compelling chips - AMD was always right there building them faster and cheaper -
AMD 486's were faster than Intel 486s
K5 was faster than Pentium (except floating point)
K6/k62 was faster than P2 (except floating point, helped by 3D-NOW!)
Athlon spanked P3/P4 hard
Opteron spanks Xeon
I could go on and on - Intel hasn't even been in the game as long as some of the other players - TI, IIRC made the first Microprocessor, AMD has been around as long as (if not longer than) Intel (and fabbed early 8088/8086's for Intel in the beginning), IBM has been doing this forever, etc.
Nice try, though. I suggest reading up on some computer history.
K6-2 and K6-3 were good CPU's , so was Athlon and Athon XP. but u are wrong here. the Athlon XP was competitive until the Pentium 4C 800mhz FSB was introduced then got killed over the next 18months. why do u think AMD went with an opteron Based CPU(Athlon64) in the 1st place. thier Athlon XP 3200+ were getting owned by 3ghz P4's how bad does that look. if you own and Athlon XP you had to OC it just to make it competitive to all you intel buddies wouldn't laugh at u. being an Athlon XP owner I can contest to this.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030210/barton-23.html
So i'll tell you Nice try Newbie but next time you'd better put up some links and prove your points or i will cut you down everytime.
