The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan DobberpuhlDobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.
This isn't too hard. The problem with it is immediately obvious to me.Mudbug said:Let's play a game.
Rewrite this sentence using proper grammar/english so that it makes sense:
Here's my modified version:The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan DobberpuhlDobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.
There's still one problem with it - what does the "its" in "its CEO" refer to?The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan Dobberpuhl (Dobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.) lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.
How is it better? x86 has always been faster and more advanced. Just look at Centrino vs PPC Laptop chips...LEgregius said:Sounds like they are just a bit too late for Macs. If they are successful, it will make me very sad. The PPC architechture is so much better than the X86. PPC has almost kept up with x86 with a small percentage of the money thrown at it. Now, if they had just done it two years ago...
Nonsense. x86 has not "always been faster". The PPC has trumped the best offerings from Intel and AMD a number of times over the years (notably when the G5 was first introduced and during the period where the PowerMac was going through Blue and White G3 - G4 transition).plastique45 said:How is it better? x86 has always been faster and more advanced. Just look at Centrino vs PPC Laptop chips...
Let's get rid of this smoke screen technology once and for all.
I agree. Plus, by the time these are even released, if they are released in the first place, Intel will probably have even lower-power offerings available for their computers.nagromme said:Does anyone really think this STARTUP is such a sure bet that Intel is a bad choice?
This startup MAY meet their goal of having an actual product by late next year. (In what kind of QUANTITIES?)
And if they do, it's chips for printers and networking devices, NOT for computers. They're positioned BELOW IBM's chips, but above Freescale's.
I wish good luck to them, but this is hardly a boat that Apple has missed
The Silicon Valley chip startup, run by chip legend Dan Dobberpuhl—Dobberpuhl, its CEO, presided over the development of the Alpha processor while at Digital Equipment Corp.—lifted its veil of secrecy Monday.
I would guess that the idea behind telling the world " we are dumping PPC and going totally x86" is to commit. Let Intel know that apple will be a good customer, and prepare the masses for the change. I don't think Apple will be locked into one chip set for life.RobHague said:Why does Apple have to have its entire range running on Intel CPU's? Never understood that - Im sure Universal Binarys will be around for a while, just how far ahead into the future are they seeing?? Arent they are cutting their own options by saying 'We are dumping PPC and going totally x86'.... what if by the time this happens there are very nice low power PPC chips on offer, and rather nice high-end PPC chips. I was looking at the benchmarks for Intels dual core's and it looks like AMD are handing them an ass-beating most of the time. Think its a mistake to lock themselves to INTEL.
What wrong with them selling a mix of systems running Intel/PPC?
Fat binaries... Apple can switch back whenever they want, or use both PPC and x86 at the same time. Most apps will continue to support both platforms.MacsRgr8 said:Don't tell me have we the wrong timing.....
In 2007 Apple, just after finishing its PPC >> Intel switch, will do an Intel >> PPC transition. The new ultra-low powerconsumption PPC chips forced the decision.
Steve comments: "Well, it's better to switch back immediately while all the developers stlll have their PPC code".
Edit: must-remember-to-change-avatar (and corrected errors...)