Giga where used as a resource for this NewsFactor article and some of the masses of us pissed off people did some research and it turns out than Giga are on the payroll of none other than Microsoft.
Need I say any more???
Need I say any more???
say no more.Originally posted by madamimadam
Giga where used as a resource for this NewsFactor article and some of the masses of us pissed off people did some research and it turns out than Giga are on the payroll of none other than Microsoft.
Need I say any more???
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Apple will also ditch it's own operating system in 2003 and began selling computers with Windows XP...I mean really...if they are going x86 why waste their money on making their own OS when MS has pretty much caught up with XP. With the new PC Apples, they will come loaded with the great "i" programs and have special styling...those features should keep them competitive against Dell and Gateway. Bill Gates is happy to finally provide the only choice in a consumer operating system, it's either Wintel...or your typewriter.
(I am being sarcastic if you have not figured it out yet)
Originally posted by i_b_joshua
we love our macs. why do we constantly get bombarded by these guys with pc/wintel envy?
to those guys: BUY A PC - just don't come crying when it doesn't work!
i_b_joshua
oh and melbourne IS the place to be
Originally posted by springscansing
Whatever.. why NOT go to Intel? Think about it.
You'd have the exact same speeds as the competition, guaranteed. Neutral.
BUT, you'd also have OS X, and great looking machines. If people see a ugly machine, and a beautiful one, same speed, they get the nicer one.
Plus OS X is an easy sell over XP. They could target all advertising at this one thing.
Plus, I'm not a programmer, but I'd assume running Intel chips would make porting programs MUCH easier. I might be wrong here, but I don't think I am... there would be a lot greater incentive to develop for mac, since it's not too much more work.
Intel would mean much more mac software, same speed as the competition, better OS, better systems in general, etc.
Originally posted by i_b_joshua
besides the whole speed argument is boring. that is not reason enough to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
we love our macs. why do we constantly get bombarded by these guys with pc/wintel envy?
to those guys: BUY A PC - just don't come crying when it doesn't work!
While I mostly agree - Motorolla and Apple have been together for a looonnnggg time. (1984?) On the other hand, it sometimes feels like Motorolla has been the one that has dumped Apple like a rock.Originally posted by scem0
IBM or Intel, I care not, as long as it isn't moto ...........
Originally posted by Dave Marsh
Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.)
Originally posted by peter2002
Because the 1.8 will wipe the floor with the 4.4 intel, that's why. Performance, performance, performance
Bud, that 970 is vaporware. Nobody knows what kind of performance it may have. I wouldn't bet a billion dollar company on a product that not here, and may never work as claim. CEO's and directors aren't that stupid.
And I have seen the 970's numbers. It's not even as fast as the 1GHZ Itanium 2. So there is no competition. Just more hot air from IBM. IBM can't compete in the chip market with Intel, nobody can, and nobody ever will. Whoever has the most money always wins, and Intel has got the most mula. IBM has too many forks in the fire.
Peter
Originally posted by mischief
Actually, you WOULDN'T have OS X OR the pretty machines: The pretty machines are reliant on a much lower-heat chip than Pentium and re-doing OS X, regardless of x-Darwin would be a giant pain in the ass. It would be vastly easier to go with the IBM PPC 970 and/or Moto PPC 7457 that rewrite and retool everything from the ground up.
Intel would NOT mean more software as OS X isn't Windoze, which is way more pivotal to the software issue than which processor.
You're basically saying that if Pigs could fly we could all have fried pork wings and wouldn't that just be peachy. Because of course, not being a genetic scientist it would make all that cooking stuff so much easier. If this was a face to face I'd slap you.
Originally posted by springscansing
Don't they already have Jaguar running on x86 buckshot? Stop being a dick.
Originally posted by iJon
Yeah i know man. I would hate apple you go to intel. im just saying apple is behind in the speed business. although it really doesnt matter to me because i dont buy a comptuer for its speed, but for what it can do.
iJon
Originally posted by Dave Marsh
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,496270,00.asp
Originally posted by Dave Marsh
I believe I've read Apple makes the bulk of its income selling hardware.
Originally posted by Dave Marsh
A more realistic, if still far out alternative, is that Apple is simply covering its bases by preserving the ability to switch processors, while retaining control of the box. This means replace the PPC with an Intel chip, maintain a Mac ROM, continue to sell an integrated package that's better than a Wintel solution.
Originally posted by Dave Marsh
2. The user experience using MacOS X on Intel would be terrible as Apple would then have to deal with the plethora of hardware incompatibilities in the Wintel world.