What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Much Are You Over-Paying For Your Auto Insurance view!
howlifeworks.com - Car insurance rates have dropped leaving many people paying far more than they need to...
50 Comments
- geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Knee jerk response. I'm sorry, but do some research before you just say that. Yes yes, I know... clock speed isn't everything.
Ever hear of the Power CPU series? Or perhaps a chip called the PowerPC G5? (A descdent of the Power5) It ran at 2.0GHz and gave Intel a good run for its money.
Now all of a sudden IBM is announcing that it has the ability to crank up the speed to 5.0GHz? Thats insane. While I'm sure not everything is as rosy as IBM would have you believe, its still a LOT of power, esepcialyl since IBM is saying it won't use excessive amounts of power (the problem Intel ran into as it tried to get to 4GHz)"
Hi. I wrote applications for the Power4 processor (fluid dynamics simulations), so I'm pretty good friends with it. I've optimized applications for the Power5, and for the PowerPC 970FX, so I have a pretty good idea of how the operate.
That being said, I'm glad IBM is finally figuring out how to make the PowerPC archetecure scale again. However, that being said, I know IBMs trickery, and I also know that using today's benchmarks of the Power4, the Power5 and the PowerPC 970FX are completely offbase. For one, the biggest way the Power4 and Power5 are alike is the archetecure they're designed on, PowerPC. Underneath the hood however, you'll find that it's not all that it's cracked up to be. The Power4 was a highly fragmented design when it comes to processors; the idea was to have more cores and have each core doing less, more specific work, totalling up to a CPU package that would outperform anything in its market segment (at the time, the Itanium was IBMs performance goal). They FAILED. Miserably. It took 4 Power4s to equal up to the power of a single Itanium simply because it wasn't doing enough work, even fully saturated.
IBM shifted gears for the Power5, they wouldn't take that defeat again. They went balls to the wall, copying a lot of the ideas of the more-RISC-like Pentium/Athlons on the market (yes, both the Pentium 4 and the Athlon 64 are RISC chips... they've just got a front-end CISC decoder which makes them act exactly like their older bretherin). More units. Better units (including Altivec/VMX which they picked up from Apple and Motorola). Onboard memory controllers. Simultanious Multi-threading per-core. It's an all-around better chip. So what's the problem?
The problem is, they went /too/ balls-to-the-wall. While being a monumental improvement over Power4, it didn't perform well enough in the wattage game for a lot of the major supercomputing vendors to pick it up (though some did, and IBM still sells the Power4 (support) and the Power5 (on their main super computing platforms that don't use midrange chips)). And it did hit its goal; the Itanium and the Itanium 2 still have trouble catching up to this beast of a chip in raw performance (a lot of this, however, is because the Itanium is a real bitch to code for. But, that's part of the game; if you can't code effeciently for it, you shouldn't be buying it).
When Apple came to them for their next desktop chip, IBM already had the PowerPC 970 invisioned; cutting it down to a single core chip. Dumping the on-board memory controller (ended up being too bloaty, as the system bus was more than adequate to keep up with the rest of the chip). etc. etc. etc. And the PowerPC 970 is a seriously impressive chip. But even IT was too hot for Apple to continue using; IBM promised a mobile version of the chip and was entirely unable to deliver (while faster versions of the PPC970 can be built, who would order them? Apple already had to switch to a heatpipe to deal with the heat barrier, and believe it or not, Apple is often used as a benchmark for new technologies for a lot of companies; Apple's very agile and willing to try anything, even if the world hates them for it).
So my predictions for Power6? Back to the Power4 for the most part. Decrease the amount of logical units per core (likely 1/1/1 or /maybe/ 2/1/1, FPU/ALU/VMX). Deepen the pipeline. Increase the bus speed. Add virtualization. Increase the onboard L2 cache, increase support for larger offchip, on-package L3 caches. Add a speed-step-like clock-throttle controller. Most likely add back the onboard memory controller.
Result? A chip that's less powerful than the Power5, but outperforms it because it clocks roughly twice as fast. Very much like the P4.
So, why do I not digg? Because that's not the way computing should be done!!! I'd rather see more logical units per core (2/2/2 (kinda like current AMD chips minus a second SSE engine) or even 3/2/2 FPU/ALU/VMX). Don't bother with an onboard memory controller (I can handle latency, but I hate having to deal with systems which have incredibly old, slow memory, especially 2 or even 3 years down the road. I'd rather have faster memory than more memory to work with). Work with dynamically turning on and off parts of the chip. Better instruction integrators like Intel's current micro-op fusion (if you haven't taken a chance to be impressed by this technology, please do; the ability to fuse two operators that otherwise would take place one at a time is work I don't have to do as a programmer, and is a great boon in days when compiler mechanics are practically stagnant). The idea is better, not more.
So it's not a knee-jerk response. It's a response that I've carefully calculated out. And I believe it to be accurate. Anyone in here should be able to conceed that AMD's A64 platform trounced the Pentium 4. I'm saying the same thing about future versions of the Itanium trouncing the Power6. (yes, Intel is still working on the Itanium, believe it or not. Montecito will be the first dual-core Itanium chip, with a very nice power management technology ala SpeedStep Enhanced, and its due sometime between later this year and mid next year). - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"It's an interesting question, of weather Apple made the right choice. Intel still has to come out with a 64 bit for the macs. Power PC's were killing apple in the heat department. Look inside a G5 tower, there's no way IBM was going to cool a G5 enough to fit into a notebook. I think Apple should have gone with AMD."
It's really not as interesting as everyone makes it out to be. It's a very boring, cut and dry business decision that had to be made when it was made.
Apple's biggest selling computer, more than anything else the company makes, is their mobile Powerbook. Professionals love the machine because it's thin, it's sleek, it's got a lot of horsepower, it's nicely configured, it's simply the nirvana of laptop computers. Their next best sellers are the desktop PowerMac computers.
The problem is, when Apple talked to IBM about the PowerPC970, they almost exclusively talked to them for a mobile chip. Through the gears of IBMs marketing department, they said they'd greenlight the PPC970 for desktop and mobile production, even though at the time, Apple would be practically the sole purchaser of the chip.
After years of waiting, developing a super powerful operating system like OS X, Apple started to realize that as much hype as IBM poured on them for the PowerPC 970, it simply would never be able to be a mobile chip; every speed increase brought more and more heat, to the point that Apple had to do something that's very un-Apple like: make a loud computer. A very loud computer.
I'd say at this point, Jobs was pissed. Jobs wants computers to be seemless in his environment. He doesn't want to even know they're there until he needs to work with them, and that's very prevalent in Apple's current designs; they're much less pieces of machinery and much closer to being pieces of furnature/applicance, like a television set or a VCR.
AMD's main goal right now is to shut down Intel's mid-range server chips. AMD's really freaking good at making very powerful chips, but they always have had a problem with heat production because of it, and one of the biggest environments that's capable of dealing with heat is a gigantic, airconditioned server room. They also realized that the biggest part of Intel's business is going towards these computers, so AMD targeted the AMD64 platform to cut them off in this area. The AMD64 archetecture is an IT administrator's dream; it's very very fast, almost as fast as big-iron IBM chips. It's heat signature is high, but comparable to what they're running already, and thus in-line. It's 64-bit (which really is a no-sale to home users; 64-bit computers main advantage at this day in time is being able to access HUGE amounts of memory, which is why Apple went with a 64-bit PowerMac). It uses a system bus that is very friendly to multi-processing. It literally was designed to crush Intel's mid-range server division.
However, as great as it is, it simply doesn't have anything on Intel's Israeli-designed P8 archetecure, the return of the triumphant Pentium 3 Tualatin, the Pentium M/Centrino platform. The advantage of the Pentium M platform is that while running at 95% of the performance of their bigger brother, the Pentium 4/D, the Centrino platform uses 1/3rd of the energy. This makes these chips a mobility DREAM chip, increasing battery life by leaps and bounds.
Remember, Apple's biggest market segment is the Mobile platform. So, it was a no brainer, go with Intel for their chips. Get an extremely good deal on them. And, get to poke fun at an old rival (which takes away from some of the shame; Intel did clean up its business in the 2000's, switching from the CISC processor design to a decidedly RISC-fusion design). Intel loves this because for years, they've been designing technologies that Dell and HP and Gateway would not touch; EFI would require a re-write of all modern BIOSs and large parts of the operating systems, memory technologies, bussing logics, Intel has a whole host of technologies they've been designing for home PCs, but they can't get them out of the door. Apple opens up a way for Intel to get these technologies into the mainstream, and make the Dells, the HPs, and the Gateways catch up and use these technologies.
Also, being on the x86 platform, Apple has the ability to switch to AMD processors on a whim, replacing the processors in their XServe and PowerMac lines with AMD64 processors would be trivial. Not that they're likely to go this route as of yet; Intel has to be cutting them an excellent deal on the chips, Apple must be loving the fact that these chips are so less power-hungry (I predict a fanless, thinner Mac Mini), and thus the circle of business comes round. (Apple has a thing about Cyclical markets; they've figured out the yin-yang of marketing so well that they can take almost any two complementary products and sell the ***** out of them, see iTunes and the iPod).
Lastly, what does Apple give up by leaving IBM? Well, they give up the G5, which is a hella powerful chip, but in every since of the word "powerful". They give up the CELL processor (which, honestly, wouldn't be good for them unless Apple really was developing that HDTV+Mac Mini combo, where video scaling would become an issue and that huge parallel operation engine could actually come in handy like it will for the PS3). They give up the Power6 derivative desktop chip (which is now less likely to ever be built, seeing as it is already 3 years away, the major purchaser Apple isn't interested, and they're not going to turn a great profit on it anyways). But, most importantly, they give up PowerPC, which is a sad thing for Apple because PPC is so elegant and so much better to code for.
(No, Apple hasn't given up AltiVec/Velocity Engine/VMX. They still own the patents on them. I can almost hear Intel's mouth watering to get a big bite of that action. Intel is Apple's lapdog for now...)
This will be a hella exciting year in computers. - weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The 'stagnation' of IBM wasn't why Apple left IBM. It left because IBM didn't pay much attention to Apple because Apple wasn't a big customer for them. It managed to keep cranking out faster processors but it never managed to manufacture a part cool enough to run in a laptop, Apple's biggest market these days.
I think it's awesome that IBM, as a company, 'thinks different' if you will and produces some of the most innovative chips and technology in the industry, but the truth of the matter is that Apple needs a company which is responsive to its own needs in the way Intel and AMD are, not in the way IBM and Motorola were. - drewjoh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"4 to 5 Ghz speed
NOT 6 Ghz as reported"
Other reports are saying IBM has 6Ghz samples running. So that's not inaccurate.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/07/ibm_power6_show/ - illynova, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Reported because this article is so far offbase it's not even funny; megahertz really doesn't have much to do with how fast a chip runs except within that chip's microprocessor family."
Knee jerk response. I'm sorry, but do some research before you just say that. Yes yes, I know... clock speed isn't everything.
Ever hear of the Power CPU series? Or perhaps a chip called the PowerPC G5? (A descdent of the Power5) It ran at 2.0GHz and gave Intel a good run for its money.
Now all of a sudden IBM is announcing that it has the ability to crank up the speed to 5.0GHz? Thats insane. While I'm sure not everything is as rosy as IBM would have you believe, its still a LOT of power, esepcialyl since IBM is saying it won't use excessive amounts of power (the problem Intel ran into as it tried to get to 4GHz) - Vanburene, on 08/08/2008, -0/+1Thanachart and IBM Sign Two Billion Baht IT Outsourcing Agreement to Enhance IT Capacity and Facilitate Progressive Growth
http://www.sourcerelease.com/corp/pwp?r=hmmmm4 - ajwillys, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Read that link. IBM didn't dump apple, apple dumped IBM"
Actually, it was more a case of IBM saying "This is the chip we want to make for the market we are pursuing." If Apple wants to buy that chip, that is fine. If not, that's fine too. I'm sure the conversation between Steve Jobs and Sam Palmisano went something like this:
Steve: Hi Sam, this is Steve.
Sam: Hi Steve, what's up?
Steve: Any chance you can make us a chip that will work well in our laptops?
Sam: Sure, how many do you need?
Steve: Oh, I'd say about (insert small number here).
Sam: That's it? Sorry, we can't do that. Perhaps you should try using the same company we used for OUR laptop processors, Intel. They do real good work. Yeah, we liked them alot right up until the time we sold our PC business to Lenovo. Now, we just can't justify designing a brand new chip for such a small market. Give me a call if you ever need anything in a larger quantity.
Steve: OK, thanks anyway.
The point here is IBM made these chips for the server market and while Apple was happy to buy them, IBM was happy to sell them. IBM is more than happy to make custom chips for anything as long as the market is big enough. If you look at the next three game consoles coming out(all use IBM chips), you can see that is true. However, if their is no market, IBM is smart enough to stay away!! - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Reported because this article is so far offbase it's not even funny; megahertz really doesn't have much to do with how fast a chip runs except within that chip's microprocessor family.
The Itanium 2 might only run at 1.66GHz, but it does on par with, and in certain cases MORE work in one full operating cycle than an Athlon 64/Opteron and Intel's own Xeon. However, the Itanium was designed to be a VLIW processor using EPIC (instead of being a speculative, Out of Order processor like pretty much everything else on the market until the Xbox 360s xenon processor), which makes it far more tailored to the task of running extremely intensive math calculations very very quickly.
Yeah, I hope IBM is successful in deepening the pipeline all the way down to scale up to 4 and 5GHz, but really, this number has nothing but marketing hype written all over it. Even Intel's stopped throwing GHz numbers around. - bittered, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Oh and i forgot to say you guys are forgetting that apple is probably also moving to Intel for compatibility reasons it makes it easier to convert windows programs to mac (This may be incorrect but i have heard it from more than one person)"
Incorrect.
---
Apple can still use the power pc if they want to. Think of it this way... Apple have a greater choice of processors to choose from than any pc manufacturer. They have Intel/AMD & G4/G5. There's no reason why they can't use Intel in it's laptops, AMD in it's desktops and Power6 in it's servers. I'm not saying that they will do that, but they could if they wanted to.
Apple has shown in the past that it will change processor if the market warrants it. - supersteve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The Power PC G5 is a totaly different architecture then the Power6 microprocessor. So even thou apple is no longer with IBM this new Power6 chip would not have benefited them in any way. From my understanding, as the Power PC G5's power increased the size would also have to increase a fare amount. And there was no easy solution to this probelm. The design of the CPU had run its course. thus the switch to Intel and plus other factor too. I think the switch to intel will pay off big in the long run. For now I love my Dual G5, it smokes anything i toss at it.
just my 2 cents - noneloud, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Please! No one at IBM gives a ***** about Apple. Apple ceased to exist the minute IBM decided to dump them as a customer."
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/06/20050611124553.shtml
Read that link. IBM didn't dump apple, apple dumped IBM
Really --no matter who dumped who-- monetarily speaking, Apple leaving didn't effect IBM, especially with IBM signing deals with all of the next-gen consoles to supply chips. However, Apple is a huge brand these days, and not only in it's iPods. There is no mistaking that Apple is seen as an technologically advancing company which is growing exponentially every year. When Apple choses to drop your product, and specifically when they make a major shift in order to drop your product, it tells the world that your product is not advancing at the same pace technologically as the next brand.
Now, I know IBM was probably developing these types of chips before the Intel switch was announced, but you can't help but wonder if they decided to invest more resources into their chip department in order to show "See, we aren't a do-nothing company that Apple make you think we are!"
With all of that said and done, the reason why Apple switched was because of the chips sucking too much energy for laptops(a market that is half of all PCs and growing). Mr. Jobs loves his company too much to let his ego make poor business decisions, specifically since the company prided itself in "Thinking different" with a 'better' processor before the switch.
I just hope that everything turns out to benefit Apple in this situation because I see them making new products and great products and I think it's something the industry truly needs. Companies and websites and brand names are now thinking of the full user experience more than before, not just functionally but aesthetically. While many people don't see a point in the "prettiness" I think is helps to bring a user closer to a computer so that they can do more with it and become more comfortable with new ideas. I just hope Apple doesn't screw that opportunity up by changing their game plan and becoming the rubber-stamp made iPod-factory.
Either way, this topic is about IBM chips. They are used in a lot more things than Apple computers, so I think other comments could be more interesting if they talk about something other than the current Apple discussion. :-) - coolgeek61813, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0finally it seems that intel has been stuck at stuck at 3.2-3.8ghz for at least a year and a half, but i must say that IBM was making some progress with the G5. i though for a wile that mores laws was being broken. thank you International Business Machines corporation for bring hope back to the IT world.
- kalisphoenix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0geminitojanus pwned everyone, I think.
This is interesting to me (a non-programmer), but as has been pointed out, this is not and will never be a desktop chip. Try to buy even a Power4-based machine on eBay for less than a year's salary (a year's salary for me, anyway ;-)). - capn_caveman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ooops... my bad.
- cantaclaro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Apple will still be able to develop computers with PPC in the future. Universal binaries guys, they run on PPC and Intel. Apple can switch back any time they want.
- RonDP, on 11/21/2008, -0/+0was interesting to read all these comens
http://www.acadapterz.com/ibm.html - exaviger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Details of the chip, which is scheduled to be available next year, were being presented at the International Solid-State Circuits Conference in San Francisco. The conference runs through Friday."
This chip is only due in minimum of 12 months. With all the applet/intel/IBM talks going around and the way apple insulted IBM ("Yes they did regardless of their 3% market) I have no doubt what so ever the early release of the details of this chips is related.
Maybe it is only related because IBM doesnt want its server market to think it wont deliver to them like it didnt for apple or maybe it is an ego thing to prove they can push the megahertz even though we all should know that does not equal performance.
Either way this is simple marketing 101. - gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good lord. You people are talking about this as if it were a desktop chip!? The Power series are not designed for desktops. This has nothing to do with Apple. This also has very little to do with AMD or Intel, at least in the desktop market. There's really no reason that this announcement should be sparking any kind of discussion about what we all run in your home PC and how this processor blows it away (or will when it comes out).
I guess you could say that this relates to Apple in that it shows why Apple switched. IBM makes processors for servers. They just. don't. care. about Apple's tiny marketshare and they're not going to invest in R&D to desktop- and laptop-alize their Power chips anymore. - weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There is so much confusion on this issue it's quite a shame. This article is not about the G5. The G5 is a version of the Power4 processor designed to be able to be placed in a desktop computer. The G5 has never even hit 3.0GHz and IBM never released a followup based on the Power5. It doesn't seem to be interested in adapting any more of the Power- series of server processors to a format cool enough for desktops, much less laptops. I think that while IBM has some amazing innovations, they simply aren't adept at making cool, small, light processors. Just look at the XBox.
EmilioLazardo is right in a way, IBM doesn't care about Apple as a customer. They're simply not big enough, IBM has made many inroads into the server market with its Power chips and has won over ever console maker. They're certainly not hurting. But it is something of a PR mishap that Apple has chosen to switch over since they are a very visible customer. Still, recent benchmarks have shown that the G5 still holds up pretty well against the Core Duo, although the Duo was designed as a laptop part, and the G5 a desktop part, you would think the latter would be faster by a considerable margin, which it's not. - x404x, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Sounds like IBM is trying to recover from bad PR caused by apple dumping them because they couldn't deliver a fast chip that runs cool enough to use."
Or IBM could be firing back at Apple, when they said IBM could not deliver the clock speed they wanted. What happened to the "megahertz myth"? Apple is eating their own words (when they were backing Power) by giving in to the "look at the high clock speed dual core intel chips we have now" hype. Doublespeak all the way. - dombi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Tha article mentions "higher-end servers running the Unix"... so this was really not designed for desktop and portable computers.
High end servers are a completely different market, with different targeted customers. This processor sounds great, but I bet that you could not put it in a $500 mini, or even a $1500 Power Mac. This will probably be a great processor for IBMs own servers for huge corporations. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Or IBM could be firing back at Apple"
Please! No one at IBM gives a ***** about Apple. Apple ceased to exist the mintue IBM decided to dump them as a customer.
Are people really this ***** clueless of the enormous highend server market IBM is targeting this chip for? - lightyear4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0i find it sad that i resorted to lynx in order to read this article.
- weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Bear in mind that the G5 is based on IBM's Power4 chip, no t its Power5. This technology will likely never make it to home computers, at least not from the likes of IBM. It may be creating innovative chips but it is not necessarily leveraging this technology for anything beyond the server and console market. Let's just hopesome people are good at following in IBM's footsteps.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Apple will still be able to develop computers with PPC in the future."
Nope.
When IBM dumped Apple last year, it was for good. IBM is sick and tired of dealing with Jobs for less than %2 of their chip business.
Apple is now locked out of both the insanely powerful Cell and Power6 chips.
WTG Jobs! - drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"i find it sad that i resorted to lynx in order to read this article. "
Hey, lynx is fun to use.
As for Apple, it's not a mistake to ditch the Cell and power6. Apple is a consumer notebook company. They don't want to have processors so hot they need a cooling tower in their notebooks. These processors are not practical. As for the desktops, they are a little more practical, but it would be difficult for a company to have notebooks on x86 and desktops on power. It just wouldn't work out. - me2me, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Sounds like a good overclocker to me
low heat
low power
but then that begs the question why dont they keep cranking up the power until they get closer the the silicone temperature barrier - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0 ^
||
Well said Weareglass!! I agree 100 per Cent. Now if Apple would only desing their own chips! :) - evilspoons, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I seem to remember that IBM was supposed to have a 4GHz PowerPC G5 for Apple already... like a year ago. Wow, they're finally getting 4-5 (or 6) GHz now? Awesome job.
- link470, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wonder what Apple's thinking
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Apple didn't luck out, its still not the Intel platform
- zboog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0The whole point about Apple missed the boat may be missing the boat. It's highly possible the reasons for Apple's move to Intel was for Intel's prowess in the mobile CPU avenues. The Pentium M is far more impressive in notebooks than the desktop intel CPU is in desktops. Also, the upcoming XScale CPU will break the 1GHz barrier for handhelds, with even less power consumption than the current XScale - which would allow future Ipods to play back HD video and run serious applications. I for one do not believe Apple was all that focused on the desktop CPU relationship with Intel.
- HyperX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0another step in the GHz war
- cyberghost232, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0im not impressed.
- boci81, on 10/12/2007, -1/+04 to 5 Ghz speed
NOT 6 Ghz as reported - RADicalSatDude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"Doesn't work in Opera either.
posted by jiub at 06:19 PM 2/07/06"
The page opens fine in Opera version 8.51 build 7712. - autoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0To be released in 2007, not "IBM Unveils"! NO DIGG!
- dharh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Apple IS lucky it jumped off the powerPC ship when they did. IBM does not care about apple or the personal computer business it is a corporate provider. IBM wants to focus on server and console chips which make them far more money than Apple would in the foreseeable future.
- skytomorrownow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0reminder: apple still uses powerpc in high end workstations and plans to do so for a while. it's conceivable that if these cheaps really do outperform anything intel or amd can do, apple could easily keep them in the workstation line. apple hasn't dumped g5s yet...
- kenfagerdotcom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I'm not buying it either. I'm sure IBM would have mentioned something to the Apple camp earlier if they really had the ability to double their high end processor specs. Even if IBM gets these alleged Power based chips to the server market, it will still take a long time for them to be implemented into home computers.
- me2me, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh and i forgot to say you guys are forgetting that apple is probably also moving to Intel for compatibility reasons it makes it easier to convert windows programs to mac (This may be incorrect but i have heard it from more than one person)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's an interesting question, of weather Apple made the right choice. Intel still has to come out with a 64 bit for the macs. Power PC's were killing apple in the heat department. Look inside a G5 tower, there's no way IBM was going to cool a G5 enough to fit into a notebook. I think Apple should have gone with AMD.
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0This is still useless for laptops, which is one of the main reason Apple switched.
- jk_baller23, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I'm sure AMD and Intel will come up with something. Just because IBM comes out with a new chip doesn't mean that Apple lucked out. If Apple was still with IBM, and the chip was perfect for everything, I'm sure other computer makers would have picked it up also.
- Rice, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Poor Apple...
Just, for being... Apple.
:/ - shadowsurfr1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Ugh. I had to open up IE. Damn MSNBC and its incompatibility with Firefox."
Worked fine for me, have you upated to FF 1.5? - jiub, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Doesn't work in Opera either.
I'm calling BS right now. Sounds like IBM is trying to recover from bad PR caused by apple dumping them because they couldn't deliver a fast chip that runs cool enough to use. - directedition, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Offbase? Was't the stagnation of the megahertz in IBM's chips the leading reason Apple switched to Intel? I realize it means nothing, but this shows that Apple could have just held its horses.
- vapb400, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Ugh. I had to open up IE. Damn MSNBC and its incompatibility with Firefox.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is