Author Topic: Apple to switch to Intel processors (Read 1355 times)

Mini D · « **Reply #60 on:** June 11, 2005, 10:49:15 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada
Why Apple decide to use CPU whitch other manufactures leaving ?

If i pissed on you again MiniD, im sorry but if you have nothing to say, then simply dont respond.

Dude... get a damn clue.

The thread says why apple is using Intel. Read it very carefully. Intel makes mobile PCs that use half the power of PowerPCs or Athlons. That's stated in this thread. It's the primary drive for Apple ditching IBM's manufacturing process.

As for others leaving Intel... that's where you start pissing. You cite sun, who's sales are completely irrelevant (you'd have to run their OS on a box purchased from them to even get 64bit apps to work), but you seem to think it's indicitave of a trend. You pretend sun wouldn't have ditched Intel at any given instance because "they're not competitors". Sorry dude, but you don't seem to want answers... you seem to want to prove a point. You're failing.

Nilsen · « **Reply #61 on:** June 11, 2005, 10:53:47 AM »

there are now rumors that intel will BUY apple.. this was the first move.

Mini D · « **Reply #62 on:** June 11, 2005, 11:00:01 AM »

I seriously doubt that's true. Regardless, It would not be allowed.

Nilsen · « **Reply #63 on:** June 11, 2005, 11:08:31 AM »

not be allowed by?

Mini D · « **Reply #64 on:** June 11, 2005, 11:20:52 AM »

The government would not allow that buy-out. It pushes the boundries of a monopoly. Intel owning an operating system in addition to an overwelming majority share of the chip market is a dangerous combination.

LePaul · « **Reply #65 on:** June 11, 2005, 11:33:10 AM »

You mean you haven't seen Terminator?

lada · « **Reply #66 on:** June 11, 2005, 01:46:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
Dude... get a damn clue.

The thread says why apple is using Intel. Read it very carefully. Intel makes mobile PCs that use half the power of PowerPCs or Athlons. That's stated in this thread.

Quote

As for why Apple was making the shift, Jobs pointed both to past problems and to the PowerPC road map, which he said won't deliver enough performance at the low-power usages needed for powerful notebooks.

ammm ummm ehm ehm ... would you be so kind and make screenshot with passage, where they speak about athlons ? (put it into red circle please)

Shall i ask same questio for 3rd time ?

some hints if you have no clue, why im asking
http://www.techreport.com/onearticle.x/7417
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumd-820_3.html

Mini D · « **Reply #67 on:** June 11, 2005, 04:35:54 PM »

You do realize the same IBM process that was making PowerPC chips is also used to make AMD chips... right?

You find an AMD processor that even comes close to the low power consumption of an Intel mobile processor. You won't. It's a harsh reality to deal with, but I think you'll get over it in time.

Nilsen · « **Reply #68 on:** June 11, 2005, 04:43:23 PM »

Mini D is speaking the truth

Vulcan · « **Reply #69 on:** June 11, 2005, 06:13:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada
Well... when some costumer is trying to convince you, that he want top quality, and then you gave him 3 offers... cisco, intel, planet .. he simply look at it and buy most cheap solution, with underlined text "not recomanded solution" then you have 2 options.

a. you can point finger, laugh and be cool

b. you can simply sell what he demands and make some money.

Well you didn't give him much of a choice did you?

Cisco - expensive without the full functionality and with poor performance
Intel - almost a dead brand as far as networking goes
Planet - a low end low performance cheap Taiwanese solution

lada · « **Reply #70 on:** June 12, 2005, 04:38:25 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
Well you didn't give him much of a choice did you?

Cisco - expensive without the full functionality and with poor performance
Intel - almost a dead brand as far as networking goes
Planet - a low end low performance cheap Taiwanese solution

no I didnt. I mostly work with cisco. And to be honest i were laizy to search for proper spelling of other.

However cisco is expensive, cisco doesnt work well if its missconfigured.... and yeah when you dont know whitch model suite to your solution, it can have poor performance.

Well Intel didnt disappear yet overhere. Plenty companies are still running them. But 3Com and HP did. (nobody sell them from stock) Key*** and Allied tel. are even less used that Intel here.

While Intel were in stocks here, it were just fine option to Cisco... but rest of manufactures, like 3Com,Hp and other are just same stuff as Planet and other proud Taiwanis.

Actualy sales of planet went rapidly up, while other fall. Even VDSL platform by Planet is quite nice stuff.

lada · « **Reply #71 on:** June 12, 2005, 04:42:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Mini D
You do realize the same IBM process that was making PowerPC chips is also used to make AMD chips... right?

You find an AMD processor that even comes close to the low power consumption of an Intel mobile processor. You won't. It's a harsh reality to deal with, but I think you'll get over it in time.

No i didnt know that IBM have same process for PowerPC as they have for AMD.
Could you explain more about this ?

Is it realted to current AMD production ?

I also noted, that they speak about mobile CPUs in the report, but didnt find any comparation of mobile CPUs.

Nilsen · « **Reply #72 on:** June 12, 2005, 04:56:39 AM »

I use D-link, 3com and SMC.

All work fine for me, but then im not a professional user either.

-edit- only product i havent liked was an ASUS wifi router. It has won some awards but i "just didnt like it"

Vulcan · « **Reply #73 on:** June 12, 2005, 05:05:07 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lada
However cisco is expensive, cisco doesnt work well if its missconfigured.... and yeah when you dont know whitch model suite to your solution, it can have poor performance.

No, Cisco is crap, configured right or not, Juniper routers have more functionality and performance, Foundry & AT switches have more functionality and performance, Netscreen & Sonicwall have more functionality and performance. Cisco is an easy cop out for people who are to lazy to figure out what really is best for them.

lada · « **Reply #74 on:** June 12, 2005, 06:09:44 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan

Cisco is an easy cop out for people who are to lazy to figure out what really is best for them.

You must be freaking ritch, if you know whats best for those, who didnt even tell you their demans. You probably never heard that things should be use for purpose, whitch they fit well, did you ?

Since you keen on your statements, w/o any need of discusion, i think we can leave "this is better you dumb !!!" dialog. You can keep your, cisco=crap dream.

Im just thinking if some of cisco switches has fallen on your foot when you were small boy.... because usualy when people have some problem with something, they can name it.... like poor performance with packets under 256 bytes, or crappy http management based on java...... but you simply rock and cisco simply sux.... yeah ...