Here's a rumour that's as old as the hills rivalling the "Dell will use
AMD" rumours in longevity. The latest: "Apple will use Intel" rumour.
This time the Wall Street Journal is propagating the rumour.

Apple to explore Intel chips for Macs
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050523/tech_...ntel.html?.v=3

Yousuf Khan

Gack, snore, snooze, mumbling in his sleep. What's that he's saying?
Itanium? Nah, never. You can safely bet that Intel has had Power
emulation for Itanium scoped for a long time.

RM

On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:04:54 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Here's a rumour that's as old as the hills rivalling the "Dell will use
>AMD" rumours in longevity. The latest: "Apple will use Intel" rumour.
>This time the Wall Street Journal is propagating the rumour.
>
>Apple to explore Intel chips for Macs
>http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050523/tech_...ntel.html?.v=3
>
> Yousuf Khan


Recently, Apple was unable to fulfil a promise to have 3GHz G5 chips
within a year of the unveiling of the G5-based Power Mac.

Apple denies eyeing Intel chips
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/ap...tel-chips.html


Wasn't Apple saying "MHz doesn't matter" just a couple years ago? The
MAC is/was all about features and ease of use, not MHz?
Ed

On Mon, 23 May 2005 14:42:06 -0500, Ed <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:04:54 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Here's a rumour that's as old as the hills rivalling the "Dell will use
>>AMD" rumours in longevity. The latest: "Apple will use Intel" rumour.
>>This time the Wall Street Journal is propagating the rumour.
>>
>>Apple to explore Intel chips for Macs
>>http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050523/tech_...ntel.html?.v=3
>>
>> Yousuf Khan
>
>
>Recently, Apple was unable to fulfil a promise to have 3GHz G5 chips
>within a year of the unveiling of the G5-based Power Mac.
>
>Apple denies eyeing Intel chips
>http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/73057/ap...tel-chips.html
>
>
>Wasn't Apple saying "MHz doesn't matter" just a couple years ago? The
>MAC is/was all about features and ease of use, not MHz?

I don't think the IBM/Apple relationship has been a happy one.

RM

On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:04:54 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Here's a rumour that's as old as the hills rivalling the "Dell will use
> AMD" rumours in longevity. The latest: "Apple will use Intel" rumour.
> This time the Wall Street Journal is propagating the rumour.
>
> Apple to explore Intel chips for Macs
> http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050523/tech_...ntel.html?.v=3
>
> Yousuf Khan

well if most of osx is bsd based i doubt it would be that hard to port and
with the success of the ipod they have a substantial consumer base willing
to try a new os which hasnt been designed by a pack of middle managers
trying to extend their monopoly as far as possible but rather an os that
actualy works.

On Mon, 23 May 2005 13:04:54 -0400, Yousuf Khan <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Here's a rumour that's as old as the hills rivalling the "Dell will use
>AMD" rumours in longevity. The latest: "Apple will use Intel" rumour.
>This time the Wall Street Journal is propagating the rumour.
>
>Apple to explore Intel chips for Macs
>http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/050523/tech_...ntel.html?.v=3
>
> Yousuf Khan

_IF_ (and it's a huge IF) Steve Jobs decides to recompile Mac OS for
Pentium, it should be able to run on any generic PC (including
AMD-based). They may try to artificially prevent it from running on
anything but Apple-branded systems, but almost surely there soon will
be a hack or two to circumvent it. Unless Apple is eyeing Itanic,
which will keep Macs highly proprietary and obscenely overpriced.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> _IF_ (and it's a huge IF) Steve Jobs decides to recompile Mac OS for
> Pentium, it should be able to run on any generic PC (including
> AMD-based). They may try to artificially prevent it from running on
> anything but Apple-branded systems, but almost surely there soon will
> be a hack or two to circumvent it. Unless Apple is eyeing Itanic,
> which will keep Macs highly proprietary and obscenely overpriced.

Plus, it's highly doubtful that Itanium would help Apple obtain
low-power mobile parts for its laptops. The low-powered versions of
PowerPC seems to be what's at the heart of the bad blood between Apple
and IBM.

Apple likes to lock its users into proprietary computer systems, so it
has no problems taking on proprietary processors from single sources. So
I don't see why it would even bother to try to obtain price concessions
from IBM, it really wouldn't matter to its fanatical userbase -- they'll
pay anything to get it anyways. Dell on the other hand has to extract
every last drop out of Intel.

Yousuf Khan

epaton wrote:
> well if most of osx is bsd based i doubt it would be that hard to port and
> with the success of the ipod they have a substantial consumer base willing
> to try a new os which hasnt been designed by a pack of middle managers
> trying to extend their monopoly as far as possible but rather an os that
> actualy works.

Apple suffers from the exact same curse and blessing that Microsoft
suffers from -- it has locked its users into a proprietary operating
system, and the applications are therefore also proprietary. It's a
blessing because it allows it to charge huge amounts to its userbase.
It's a curse because you're stuck on one platform forever.

In theory, OS X is portable, in reality it is not. Similarly, Windows NT
and its offspring are also theoretically portable. Windows was ported to
everything from Alpha to Itanium, but in the end the only architecture
that it's going to evolve with is x86-64. OS X can similarly be ported
to many architectures, but in the end it's only the PowerPC that's going
to matter to it. The reason being that nobody bothers to port to the
other architectures. Just having a ballfield there doesn't mean that
players will come.

Solaris is finding a similar situation. It's finding that it's installed
base of Solaris for Sparc aren't all that interested in Solaris on x86.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:NEwke.3603$(E-Mail Removed)...
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> _IF_ (and it's a huge IF) Steve Jobs decides to recompile Mac OS for
>> Pentium, it should be able to run on any generic PC (including
>> AMD-based). They may try to artificially prevent it from running on
>> anything but Apple-branded systems, but almost surely there soon will
>> be a hack or two to circumvent it. Unless Apple is eyeing Itanic,
>> which will keep Macs highly proprietary and obscenely overpriced.
>
> Plus, it's highly doubtful that Itanium would help Apple obtain low-power
> mobile parts for its laptops. The low-powered versions of PowerPC seems to
> be what's at the heart of the bad blood between Apple and IBM.
>
> Apple likes to lock its users into proprietary computer systems, so it has
> no problems taking on proprietary processors from single sources. So I
> don't see why it would even bother to try to obtain price concessions from
> IBM, it really wouldn't matter to its fanatical userbase -- they'll pay
> anything to get it anyways. Dell on the other hand has to extract every
> last drop out of Intel.
>
> Yousuf Khan

Care to explain how an Itanium isn't a "proprietary processor from a single
source"? Hell, a Pentium is too for all practical purposes. What a dough
head.

del cecchi

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > Apple likes to lock its users into proprietary computer systems, so
it has
> > no problems taking on proprietary processors from single sources.
So I
> > don't see why it would even bother to try to obtain price
concessions from
> > IBM, it really wouldn't matter to its fanatical userbase -- they'll
pay
> > anything to get it anyways. Dell on the other hand has to extract
every
> > last drop out of Intel.
>
> Care to explain how an Itanium isn't a "proprietary processor from a
single
> source"? Hell, a Pentium is too for all practical purposes. What a
dough
> head.
>

Well, I was saying that the Itanium was also exactly the same as a
PowerPC from IBM.

Yousuf Khan