What is Digg?41 Comments
- ramsinks.com, on 01/03/2008, -4/+45So, Apple is predicted to use faster procs in the future.
WOW! NEWS!!!! - JackAlbright, on 01/03/2008, -3/+2710 years ago, who would have thought Apple would have such a close relationship with Intel?
- bejayel, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1610 year ago, who would have though apple was going to make the comeback that they currently are.
- wonderchemist, on 01/03/2008, -6/+1810 years ago who thought it take 9 years to ship Windows Longhorn.
- sockpuppets, on 01/03/2008, -1/+10Steve Jobs.
- mrsteveman1, on 01/03/2008, -0/+9In other news Digg will fix their fuxing site, jesus will return (as a roofer this time), and Steve Jobs will proclaim "did it for the lulz" after each announcement.
- TubbyMcGee, on 01/03/2008, -0/+8then don't waste your time commenting on it.
- chicken101, on 01/03/2008, -0/+8When they announced the switch to intel processors, jobs said that their software engineers had been working on it the entire time. If you hold this to be true, there's your answer.
- wonderchemist, on 01/03/2008, -1/+7OS X is really NextStep 5.x. NextStep ran on 680x0, x86, SPARC, and PA-RISC.
- bejayel, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5So you admit the 360 sucks right now then truspector?
I dont know how to managed to turn an apple thread into a console war thread. - TehDoctor, on 01/03/2008, -0/+5"...os X was structured..."
Sorry, but whoever said that had a woeful understanding of operating systems. Most OS's today are mostly portable just by being written in a high-level language. The only stuff that needs to change are the uses of assembly and platform-specific tricks written into the kernel. Add to that the fact that Apple didn't write the core components in house, instead borrowing from Mach, BSD, etc. and that statement is fairly pointless. - marx2k, on 01/03/2008, -1/+610 years ago I was still in love with RISC processing
- anderzole, on 01/03/2008, -2/+6Definitely. Back in the day it was Apple vs. Wintel, and now they're in cahoots. I think I read somewhere that from the very beginning, os X was structured so that it could run on both powerpc and intel chips so who knows how long the 2005 migration to Intel chips had been in the works.
- mrsteveman1, on 01/03/2008, -1/+5From wiki article on NeXT :
"NeXT started porting the NeXTSTEP operating system to the Intel platform in 1992. ..... By late 1993, the Intel port of NeXTSTEP was complete, and version 3.1, also known as NeXTSTEP 486, was released. Work on the PowerPC machines was stopped along with all hardware production."
They started quite a while ago. - antdude, on 01/03/2008, -2/+6Too bad it didn't go with AMD. AMD needs help badly now.
- TheGuruStud, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3yeah right, they own at FP. Try integers. :P
- bogslug, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4Uhhhh.. two years ago I switched from a Windows XP Pro based Athlon 64 2800+ system with a gig of ram and a 128meg nvidia GPU to an iBook 1.33ghz with a gig of ram and only 32 megs of ATI video ram. Guess what? It *****FLIES***** compared to my old system. Perhaps you ought to stop basing your opinions about Apple's products on 13+ year old hardware and come join us all in the 21st century.
- orph3us, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3It's a commonly used term, he didn't make it up
- jonro, on 01/03/2008, -0/+3This article says that Apple is evaluating the processor, not that they are going to use it.
- coldfu5ion, on 01/03/2008, -1/+4This is the sort of thing the UMPC market needs. More devices from people like Apple and the EEE PC will drive down production costs, spread usage and create innovation that just does not happen in the Microsoft world. Hell, I've never seen anyone using a UMPC in the wild. Read. Set. Fanboys!
- indiekiduk, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2Not many Apple stories being submitted to Digg anymore. Where are people off to?
- HappyScrappy, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3Again incorrect.
As shown in the pics in the article, Silverthorne is a 0.5W class product. This is great for a UMPC, but is useless for a handheld. The battery in the iPod Touch is only 2Wh. With this chip in it, the battery wouldn't even last all day even if nothing else (like the screen and backlight) ever turned on. And this is before you talk about how to dissipate 0.5W worth of heat!
Silverthorne will have to cut its power about 4X more again before Apple could use it in a phone. - danieleran, on 01/03/2008, -0/+2It's not about new processor speed, its about a new processor family architecture.
Silverthrone = low power x86
iPod/iPhone = ARM
Having noted that, the iPod/iPhone/Touch are not going to use Silverthorne. Low end Mac products like the Apple TV and a new sub-compact might. - morrislevy, on 01/03/2008, -1/+3SWEET.
- Tippis, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Faster?! Impossible! Repent -- the end is nigh!! :O
- danieleran, on 01/05/2008, -0/+1No you are absolutely wrong. Acorn was only interested in making desktop RISC processors for its RISC PC machines; Apple began work with Acorn in the late 80s to create a low power mobile chip, which ARM migrated toward. It was half owned by both. Apple already had plenty of its own processor design technology as well, having worked on its own RISC processor designs and work with Motorola on its RISC replacement to the 68k. It's only important for you to downplay Apple's processor development because it reveals Apple has done far more to push technology than its slow dumb rival.
- jessechan, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1Apple has shown repeatedly that it usually prefers partner with market leaders. Why introduce risk with components, when Apple takes so many risks with new, innovate products? The last thing they want is a new product failing because of the components.
- BigBadaboom, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1"in 1993, Apple released the Newton MessagePad using a new processor architecture the company designed in collaboration with Acorn Computer, called ARM"
This statement is erroneous. Apple played no part in the design of the ARM. It was all done in-house at Acorn. - sv650touring, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1The stock price actually fell when Jobs returned (about 10 years ago) , so obviously not the shareholders.
- TheGuruStud, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1which is why AMD could be in a really good area in the near future for the cpu/gpu combos for integrated devices. Less power consumption and more speed.
- yabos, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Why would they go with AMD? AMD can't provide the same low power(and fast) chips that Intel can.
- jhuebel, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Wow, buyer's remorse much? Should I complain about how little use I'm getting out of my old C=64 that's sitting in the closet?
- happyseamonster, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1...being pleasured by hot Mac Chicks.... gotta go...
- inactive, on 01/03/2008, -3/+1I remember seeing somewhere a PowerMac G5 that was running on quad or dual pentium 4 chips that was used for testing of some sort. I think 2 or 3 were made but only used inside Apple or some 3rd party for development purposes.
- seantubridy, on 01/03/2008, -8/+6Oh my God! No more speculative Apple stuff!
- anti_hax0r, on 01/03/2008, -4/+1Like floating point?
- ussoldier, on 01/03/2008, -8/+3They need to stop trying to sell us new crap, and make good on all the promises they shovelled out like snake oil when they sold us all those Mac Pluses and SE's and IIs. I never saw any boost to my productivity. And these Apple computers are sllloowwww. What am I suppose to do with these, use them as environmentally unfriendly boat anchors? Why do I want to buy any more crap from Apple, when in a few years from now its just going to be more junk in my closets and basements next to the Alf TV trays and pet rocks?
- Giga, on 01/03/2008, -5/+09 years? That's a bit of an exaggeration. Also, are you referring to Vista or Server 2008? Both carried the code name Longhorn.
- Gogogo111, on 01/03/2008, -7/+1Wintel. ***** awesome. Originality at its finest.
- truspect0r, on 01/03/2008, -12/+1I predict x-Box to not suck in 2008 and OWN every other console.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is