Well, with the increased use of multi-core technology, operations can be distributed simultaneously across different processors, accomplishing tasks in fewer cycles per second.
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.
Does Anyone Wish that Apple Still Used a Unique Architecture for their Computers?
- Thread starter gunraidan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, with the increased use of multi-core technology, operations can be distributed simultaneously across different processors, accomplishing tasks in fewer cycles per second.
A lot of heat, but not a lot of light. IBM dominates the embedded processor market. The embedded processor market dwarfs the personal computer market. However, the processor market for personal computers is where the glamor and profits are. As difficult as this may be for you to understand, nobody gives a hoot which processor is used in their Xbox or microwave oven.
I asked for the evidence that IBM is regretting that Apple is not their customer and somehow you burts into your Apple fanboy rant again instead of poiting out any real hard evidence; not that it is surprising to find an apple fanboy living in dream land of Apple fairytale instead of reality but still....
Again if processor margins are higher on personal computers (which they are since the processors are more costly to develop and manufacture) what IBM sells now to their three customers dwarf anything that they would have sold to Apple; the volume of all three consoles sold every year dwarfs anything Apple sells in macs by a large margin which only means more profit for IBM. And people do care about console processors; developers do because Gaming is one of the biggest money makers in the world and you see Sony out there talking about how Cell is great and what not so yeah. People care more about PS3 and Xbox 360 than an Apple TV with an outdatd processor and a 7300GT graphics chip that cant even do 1080p!
So much for Apple using cutting edge hardware; they cant even put a quad core processor in their machines without it costing $3000 while others can do it for under $800; oh yeah I forgot instead of quad core you get a quicktime X on Mac that can upload directly to youtube!
The only thing I miss are the "big" releases. Nowadays, Apple is in the same frequent, incremental upgrade cycle as everyone else. You know what's coming, you know (to a fair degree) when it's coming, and you know it's not really worth selling your existing Mac for, unless it dies or is several generations old.
Gone are the days when you might have had an SE/30, then out of the blue came the IIfx, and you'd bite your arm off for those extra 24MHz & 3MB of RAM, and colour graphics... (drool...) and you'd want to sell the SE to your grandmother for a massive profit just to get your hands on the new IIfx.....
Gone are the days when you might have had an SE/30, then out of the blue came the IIfx, and you'd bite your arm off for those extra 24MHz & 3MB of RAM, and colour graphics... (drool...) and you'd want to sell the SE to your grandmother for a massive profit just to get your hands on the new IIfx.....
Windows on a PPC
Just found this video, quite relevant as some of you talked about the ability to run windows on a Mac now with bootcamp is a bonus for using intel on macs.
This Video however shows Windows 2000 running on a G4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZrK5hJTtTo&feature=related
Just found this video, quite relevant as some of you talked about the ability to run windows on a Mac now with bootcamp is a bonus for using intel on macs.
This Video however shows Windows 2000 running on a G4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZrK5hJTtTo&feature=related
Personally, Im cool with the intel transition, because it means I dont need two computers (one for mac, one for windows), and Its also nice because I can use my Vostro a90 (mini 9) with OS X. Dont get me wrong, I think the PPC models for Mac were great, because it gave it a distinct look, feel and it made it different from the PCs that were out, but having Intel processors has its advantages, like multi-threaded applications.
Software to do that has been around forever. It's called VirtualPC and it runs like complete crap.
Lest there be any confusion, PPC-based Macs are perfectly capable of running multi-threaded apps.
I know they can run multi-threaded apps, but the intel processors handle it with less over head nowadays.
Seeing as how the PPC has not been used for personal computers in three years, a lifetime in computer development, this is hardly an exceptional statement. Seeing as how the PPC is based on a workstation/server-class ISA, it implies something that is not true.
Why would Apple want to use an underpowered chip like Atom, when they can give decent battery life with C2D?
i7 Mac. Nehalem Mac Pro (The Xeons are server grade i7s)
Core i5, I would expect it in the next iMac...