What is Digg?59 Comments
- NoOneButMe, on 10/12/2007, -10/+40AMD is free to say what they want - that doesnt mean Apple will go along with what they're saying. Different companies and all.
Anyone else thinking AMD might have gotten a little to cocky in the past year or so before conroe came out - thinking they were the only ones that could make a good processor. - cmilki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Ya, I guess AMD would issue a statement saying Apple would use their chips and look like an ass when Steve Jobs says they wont.
/sarcasm. - millixaw, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22FTA: "Knowing Apple, why would they want to be held hostage like everyone else has been?"
Well, considering FairPlay DRM, Quicktime (Sorenson) codecs, locking Mac OSX to the hardware, exclusive disc filesystem formats, no cross-platform iWork formats, etc...
I'd say when it comes to holding the customer hostage, Apple is all for it. - rickytan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18I agree, but Apple likes to force its choices on the consumer rather than the other way around when it comes to the guts of their machines.
- hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19Ha. OpenGL, openssl, ssh, bash, vim, ruby, gcc etc etc. As well as an open kernel (xnu), bonjour. Maybe Apple does force some choices on the consumer but they at least support the industry standards in doing so, whereas MS bastardizes standards or replaces them (see: embrace, extend, extinguish).
The guts are locked, yes. I'd love to throw in any video card that I want (that's all PC people do mostly) but that's a function of market share and getting more Mac full-time developers at Nvidia and ATI.
The last time I had the "freedom" to replace my guts of my PC I had to replace the CPU. That meant I had to replace the motherboard (chipset) which means I needed a new set of memory modules. Oh, and SLI versus crossfire so I better stick with my video card vendor too but I don't have a PCI-E slot, hrm. Better get a new video card too.
Yay, freedom to do a PC forklift upgrade regardless. - manicdvln, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18Well I think Ruiz is right. He said the same thing for dell and look what's happening now.
- grant1080, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13If AMD can produce a faster, cooler-running chip that requires less power, then I'm all for it. The more competition the better, however I must admit - I love my Intel MBP!
- Doughboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Competition is good!
- adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12"I'd say when it comes to holding the customer hostage, Apple is all for it."
True, but they wouldn't want to be put in that position themselves. - hurfydurfur, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12FTA: "Apple has declined to comment on the report."
omfg, duh. - paulwilde, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10"1. you wouldn't have to worry about powerbooks CATCHING ON FIRE!!!!!!"
You may find that's Sonys fault, not Intels.
(Although PowerBooks don't use Intel anyway...) - geekdreams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Apple used G4s from Freescale and G5s from IBM at the same time, I don't see why this would be any different. Customers would just be presented with features (clock speed, mobility, etc.) and get whatever processor fits their needs/budget.
Although they've made such a big deal about "switching to Intel" (not x86) that I don't see them adding AMD as a partner anytime soon. - Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I will wrestle Apple for food in the future.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It took Dell more than 2 years to change their selection to AMD. A lot of people know this publicly and even invested in AMD because of it.
Whos to say what can happen in the future? - monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4And I will sell my finger nails to Apple in the future.
- mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Did you even read the article?
- burndive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Apple wants to go in the direction of allowing you to build your the [sic] computer you want."
No. Never. Apple may go as far as to let you *let them* build you the computer you want, but only after they tell you exactly what it is that you should want.
I can see AMD processors in Macs if AMD offers them a well-performing chip, but be assured that in general, they will offer their customers a choice "selection" that conforms to their style and image. - Stalks, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Whether or not he was referring to the same parts, the fact remains that Apple do not stick to industry standards and so the argument is nulled.
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"FairPlay DRM, Quicktime (Sorenson) codecs, locking Mac OSX to the hardware, exclusive disc filesystem formats, no cross-platform iWork formats"
FairPlay: Licensed to Motorola. If I've said it once, I've said it a million times: if you're not willing to pay the price to get in on iTunes, then your only other option is to pay the price for Microsoft's GoNowhere DRM, which is an even worse choice, seeing as Microsoft themselves are abandoning it for Zune.
Quicktime's Codecs: Older Quicktime was notorious about using incompatible codecs, yes, but Apple turned around and now all Apple products use MPEG-4 (be it AAC, H.264, etc), making it compatible with everything.
Locking Mac OS X to hardware: You'd do it too if your OS's stability was directly linked to the hardware being stable. It's the same process embedded system designers use to make operating systems there, and it works. Just because computers use similar components doesn't mean they all function identically, which is the main problem with Homebrew OS X systems. If you don't believe me, go grab a copy of the pirated OS X and try to install it on some hardware and use it, you'll quickly find out the limitations of not controlling the hardware.
Exclusive Disk File Systems: What the *****? Apple uses their own filesystem for their hard drives, yes, but it's hardly "exclusive", as most of the code for said filesystem is open and in Darwin's kernel tree. Linux, other BSDs have no problem reading Apple's filesystem at all. Microsoft's "Anti-Apple-and-OpenSource-Everything" policy keeps them from implementing an HFS driver (or for that matter an EXT2/3 driver, or a Reiser driver, or.....).
iWork crossplatform formats: What the *****? Pages saves to .txt, .rtf, .html, PDF, and Word, Keynote saves to PDF, QuickTime, Flash, Jpeg, Tiff, PNG, html (with jpeg images) and PowerPoint, rumors say Apple's going to have iWork export to ODF in the next revision. So please, what exactly isn't crossplatform about iWork's formats? One could say Microsoft's stance on its own Word incompatibilities would be much, much, much more closed off. - RonnieSan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Besides having really cool looking products, what really opened up Apple to a larger market share was the fact that they switched to Intel chips, which led most PC users to believe they could eventually run windows on a Mac system, which eventually became true. If Apple never switched over to Intel, there wouldn't be as much buzz about Apple computers as there is now. The new Macs would just be new Macs, very much like when the G4 came out vs the G3.
- anasazi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@hurfydurfur
industry standards, huh? thats funny, i can't seem to be able to plug in my industry standard DVI cable, S-Video cable, VGA cable ... gotta buy a different $30 adapter for each. same thing with the optical in/out, i can't seem to be able to plug my industry standard optical cables into my macbook, yet another $30 each purchase.
industry standards my ass - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Apple isn't interested in saving customers money, nor are they interested in supporting more than a minimum set of computer models. That's the Jobs philosophy. By selling you a more expensive processor, they can mark up the price more on it, and make more money themselves, so why would they offer AMD? They have no direct competition.
- laserdisc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Who knows what the future holds, I think Ruiz shouldn't have made his statement however I don't see Steve Jobs ever stating that Apple will never ever use AMD processors. Right now the relationship between Intel and Apple seems well. Heck if you told me 6-7 years ago Apple would go Intel, I would've said you were nuts.
- cmilki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@ digitallysick
No one's saying go all AMD, give AMD as an option. I would love to buy an AMD powered Macbook.
Something like 50-50 or 60-40 of the inventory (Intel-AMD) would be nice. - karch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Thank you internet computer experts, I value your opinion! Conroe is faster right now and thus AMD is *****, cocky, and dirt!
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"AMDs future lies on AM2, HT3.0, potentially some nice juicy zram, individual power control per core, quad core, etc"
AM2 and AM3 are just sockets, and sockets with a ***** of pins at that. Bend one and you're up a creek. HT3.0 is just yet a faster version of HyperTransport, the standard that everyone "supports", but hardly anyone actually builds chips for (which is sad, because HT is not that bad of an interconnect). ZRAM is one of those rumor technologies that sound great, but you never hear of again (or at least, I haven't seen anything in the way of developments for ZRAM, have you? Didn't think so), Individual Power-per-Core is something Intel already has ("Foxton" technology on their Itanium II chips, one of their long-standing technological proving grounds; Foxton is a direct clock frequency scalar that works independently of either core and scale the frequency of either core according to load on the processor). Quad-core is something Intel also already has, and will likely have released to the marketplace first, due to their massive lead in semis technology.
"ints roadmap...errr....yeah, i see core names, not many improved features, and, oh yeah! Front Side Bus! FSB shouldbe dead, only reason its still alive is becuase Intel makes chipsets too, and chipsets do what, regulate the FSB, so if intel axed them, theyd lose cash, heh funny aint it"
Hurr. Intel's roadmap currently has MCMs in October (quad core lead by ~9 months over AMD), and native Quad Core chips by H207. They've also got a significant power lead over AMD, and their 45nm process is months from going live (contrast this with AMD's 65nm process which is still months from going live; Intel will be an entire process generation ahead of AMD). Intel's already planned to replace FSB with Common Serial Interface (CSI), which is a HyperTransport-like bussing system (or hell, they could go with HT, I'm sure they've got a few guys in the backroom tinkering with it, especially as it's an open standard). FSB is still alive mainly because it's incredibly simple to engineer, which diverts engineering talent elsewhere, places where it's actually needed like FB-DIMM ram technology, multi-core technology, and power saving transistor technology. You're extremely childish if you'd believe Intel would lose money by axing FSB; more likely they'd gain money in everyone going out and buying the platforms over again (which include new chips that support the new protocol, new motherboards, and new RAM).
Even more likely, Intel's holding out on ridding themselves of FSB for MCM technology; putting the northbridge, voltage controller, memory controller and CPU all on one package, so that all you need to do is bring your own southbridge controller and you've got a computing platform. They've already demonstrated units with this capability, it could very well be they're simply waiting for it to mature (or measuring the market place to the acceptance of this).
The truth is, what Intel has is what AMD needs: Time. AMD doesn't have anything that can compete right now, and they need time to develop it. Intel on the other hand, has all of the time in the world to come up with a solution to FSB, as they've already solved their memory bandwidth crisis, and their chip-power-consumption crisis. Intel's got free reign just to turn up the clock on their Conroe chips and watch AMD slash prices deeper and deeper trying to deal with it. - rasputnik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+064-bit AMD dual-core (take your pick) runs cooler (and cheaper) than the intel equivalent (core 2 duo only). Dell have no particular reason to care about that, but anyone running Tiger should.
- rasputnik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0IBM cell processors.
- ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Not to ruin the disalussion, but what expanded marketshare, they havnyt budged much at all, and most of the movement in marketshare has been negative for them...even with the advent of the intel cpus.
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=5 - mandarin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Dell said the same thing 2 years ago.
- elastikos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This might never happen, putting an AMD processor in a Mac would make it too cheap, therefore not attractive to the elitist apple crowd.
- GAMER135, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I dont think Apple is going to switch to AMD now, i mean with the success with switching to Intel, who would want to switch to another processor. I personally dont think Steve Jobs is going to go with another switch.
Its like in 1994 when they switch from Motorolla processors with PowerPC processors, Apple used PowerPC processors for over 10 years and then in 2005 Steve announced they were switching to Intel
I think it will be 5 years or more before Apple will switch to AMD processors or any other processors - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Sun Microsystems also said that Apple was going to buy their 12cores boards and Sony said they were going to buy their cell processors too. Even VIA is saying that apple is beging for their processors.
- golgo13, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This makes pretty good sense really. Apple doesn't get locked in, creates incentives for Intel to keep producing results, and picks up a cheaper chip for the low-end Mac product.
- fatnutz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Well to be quite honest, for what the last 2 years before Conroe Intel was turning out jack-***** that could compare price and performance wise with AMD. So it's not surprising.
Second, I have to comment on people's overwhelming "YEAH Intel's back in the lead!" If Intel didn't have their heads up their asses they wouldn't have lost that lead in the first place. I have 3 systems at the moment and 2 are Intel, so I don't really have a problem with them. However, you could say in turn that they were being cocky about their product when it couldn't stand on it's feet with AMD's. Think people, a year+ ago how much did it cost to get an Intel processor comparable in all-around performance, and more specifically gaming? They just clocked the ***** out of those things and some got hot enough to cook meat. At least AMD is competing with price and similar performance today.
Furthermore, the only people that are going to know the difference between the two contendors competing processors are the most hardcore proc-o-philes, who have the time to bench the ***** out of it. In most applications the difference isn't what I'd call night and day. The Conroe advantage is evident looking at the specs, and seeing some of the benches, but in real-life, every day tasks..it's not that big a difference. Lets be honest here
In closing, Intel, It was about ***** time... I feel bad for the Intel fanbois that had to wait all these years to get a processor that could kick some ass. - cdman98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well Apple has to go with the fastest chip maker or else Apple zealots (I include my self) will be pissed like many were in the Power PC days when we were getting slow hardware. Except now the reality distortion field can not be used because the speed is obvious because you can now compare Apples to well Apples or if you prefer, PCs to PCs, or Mac to PC except in the anesthetics department of course.
- Alex.w, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1They include the standard ports on machines that have room to fit the port in some where, moron.
Where on your MacBook Pro do you work out you could fit a huge ass DVI port? - pixelfox, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3That was cocky of them... Apple switched to Intel because intel had the best roadmap. If AMD had had a better one, don't you think they would have switched then?
- Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Even if he is right, Intel has surpassed AMD quite a bit lately. Still, perhaps we will be able to dual boot without BootCamp...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3apple went through to much to make it all intel, no reason to go AMD
- panique, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I view this along the lines of the super-geeky guy who works in the data center saying "yeah, some day I'm gonna nail that voluptuous blonde in accounting".
- ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Sorry...Im not following...Intel...the best roadmap? surely you jest
AMDs future lies on AM2, HT3.0, potentially some nice juicy zram, individual power control per core, quad core, etc
ints roadmap...errr....yeah, i see core names, not many improved features, and, oh yeah! Front Side Bus! FSB shouldbe dead, only reason its still alive is becuase Intel makes chipsets too, and chipsets do what, regulate the FSB, so if intel axed them, theyd lose cash, heh funny aint it - inkhead, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2They will offer AMD in a few years when their exclusive Intel contract is up. Apple wants to go in the direction of allowing you to build your the computer you want.
- ImmortalLobster, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Sure, speedwise, but not sales. Intel cant get any of that huge stock of old Pentiums to sell, and the C2Ds arent selling to well in the OEM marketplace, only people really picking them up are enthusests...which represents what, 5% of the market?
- silicondon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2I hope this isn't bogus, I for one would prefer it if Macs used processors with HyperTransport.
- SuspectDevice, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Hector is a little delusional. Just because he wants it to happen doesn't mean it will. I'm not ruling out the possibilty but AMD has a lot of catching up to do first.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Odd that the article doesn't mention Dell at all, the biggest hold out that have come to see the light and move away from an intel-only lock in.
- doyadigg, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2but lots of people want that. they don't care what cpu goes into their machine as long as it's fast and priced near a similarly configured dell machine.
- adstretch, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3Burried as inaccurate, purley for the title. AMD making claims about future (possible) purchases means nothing. Apple likes A LOT of control over the hardware used, and has always made things work more smootly through that control. Too many supported cores would also lead to waaaay more beige boxes and apple had pretty much worked to do away with that since the start of the G5 era.
- stoobs3k, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0I think this is all crap. First of all, Apple just finally switched to Intel, and second of all I think everyone will agree AMD's are made for gaming, and Mac's are totally not gaming computers. Unless Apple makes a gaming computer, I think Amd's would be pointless in a Mac. But of course, that's just my opinion.
www.stoobs3k.blogspot.com -
Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is