 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Q Cubed
|
 |
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
I guess only Asher could believe that IBM didn't promise Apple a G5 in a notebook, which is what this is really about. I don't think Apple was pissed off so much about the lack of speed progress, but the notebook thing was the big deal. |
 Can I have proof that IBM ever promised Apple a notebook chip? IBM, as far as I can tell, only ever said they were working on reducing its heat issue and power consumption.
quote:
But good riddance to bad rubbish. Here's hoping Intel can do a better job. |
This confuses me even more. Mostly because Intel won't be making PPC chips for Apple, but seems likely to just give them x86 chips with maybe a few extensions, if at all.
So... it's not like Intel's really gaining much, or doing much on their end, either. All told, Intel isn't really a winner, and IBM really isn't a loser.
The only company this change really affects is... Apple.
quote:
They lose credibility. They said they could get it done, and they didn't. I guess they don't care, or that will be their public response, but they were singing a different tune 2 years ago. |
When did they say they could get it done? Proof, please. Besides, this purported "hit" to IBM's credibility in the chip sector probably won't matter much, so long as they deliver to Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo for the console market... which not only dwarfs the Apple market, but the PC one as well.
As far as the rest of IBM's image, it's doubtful much could tarnish it for a good long while, at least in the services sector, after how much goodwill they garnered up with the whole SCO affair...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
When the G5 was first introduced. In any case, do you think Apple would have signed up with them if they hadn't? Don't be daft. |
I'd like some proof, otherwise, I'll see this as a bald-faced assertion.
quote:
No kidding. But not as much as people think. |
This coupled with what's above means...
So, pretty much your argument boils down to "IBM sucks because Apple ditched them"?
quote:
I don't think it will make much difference to Apple in the long run. Most Apple users buy Apple for the OS – that's the main difference. It could run on any sort of chip for all that most users care. I certainly have never really been interested in the hardware wars. |
Frankly, if Apple is smart, it won't do vendor-hardware lock-in. Not doing that will allow it to directly compete with Windows and Linux, with joy going all around to everyone.
Unfortunately, if Apple does do vendor-hardware lock-in, I wouldn't place a lot of money on Apple. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the lock-in schema got hacked and caused Apple hardware to haemorrage money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
I'd like some proof, otherwise, I'll see this as a bald-faced assertion. |
Go look for it yourself. I remember it from two years ago when the G5 was introduced, and it makes sense independently of that.
But if you think I'm going to spend hours trolling the internet to satisfy you, you must be deranged. I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not, and I'm certainly not going to spend any great effort in that cause.
quote:
This coupled with what's above means...
So, pretty much your argument boils down to "IBM sucks because Apple ditched them"? |
Don't be daft. IBM sucks in this particular case because their performance was subnormal. They made all sorts of big noises two years ago, and never really delivered. I don't really care about the rest of their business, because it doesn't affect me.
Motorola were similarly useless. I hope Apple keeps its options open so that it can switch to AMD if Intel doesn't work out.
quote:
Frankly, if Apple is smart, it won't do vendor-hardware lock-in. Not doing that will allow it to directly compete with Windows and Linux, with joy going all around to everyone.
Unfortunately, if Apple does do vendor-hardware lock-in, I wouldn't place a lot of money on Apple. Indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if the lock-in schema got hacked and caused Apple hardware to haemorrage money. |
That shows how much you know. Apple won't do it because they tried it before and it didn't work. It would also screw up everything that is good about the mac, since Apple would no longer have tight control over the hardware (which means things don't **** up as much).
Presumably a few people will hack it and install pirate copies of OS X on their PCs. I don't see these as lost sales, just as I don't see downloads of music files as lost sales. That sort of thing will remain a minority sport.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Go look for it yourself. I remember it from two years ago when the G5 was introduced, and it makes sense independently of that.
But if you think I'm going to spend hours trolling the internet to satisfy you, you must be deranged. I couldn't care less whether you believe me or not, and I'm certainly not going to spend any great effort in that cause. |
I've been searching for it this entire time, and I haven't found anything on IBM's side promising or suggesting anything. Closest I've gotten is something saying to the effect that they were working on reducing power consumption and heat.
Since you're not willing to step up to the plate, I'll just mark this as yet another example of Fanboist BFA.
* Q Cubed shrugs
===
quote:
That shows how much you know. Apple won't do it because they tried it before and it didn't work. It would also screw up everything that is good about the mac, since Apple would no longer have tight control over the hardware (which means things don't **** up as much). |
I thought you said you didn't care about the hardware, only the software?
In any case, the general consensus among myself and others is that vendor lock-in is bad in the x86 world. It works fine in PPC, because there aren't many competitors--there's Apple, and maybe Genesi with their Pegasos platform. With x86, you'll have all the hobbyists, the plethora of component brands, and what not. (Incidentally, you do realize this is why Windows crashes so much--not so much the operating system, but the fact that most of the hardware drivers are poorly written third-party affairs, right?)
What's more, it seems to me people will notice that there's not much difference between the innards of an Apple computer and a Dell, and wonder why the Apple is so much more expensive--which means they might be relying more and more on style over substance at that point.
Not something I'd like to reward in an open market.
There are a few things which I can tell from my Cube that might reduce the variety in hardware: first among them being OpenFirmware, though I believe it doesn't work with x86 chips. Outside of that... there really isn't that much of a difference. The AGP ports are there, the PCI as well; SATA, IDE, and the same kind of RAM.
Why won't vendor-hardware lock-in kill Apple in an x86 world?
quote:
It would also screw up everything that is good about the mac, since Apple would no longer have tight control over the hardware |
Also, just to be as snide to you as you are to me:
I thought you said it was the software that was what made the Mac good, not the hardware? Why are you contradicting yourself here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Q Cubed
|
|
t3h y3ll0w p3ril
Apr 1999
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
It's not the particular hardware, but the fact that Apple knows exactly what hardware it's machines have. Hence there are very few hardware problems with Apple software upgrades. For example, if you install a new version of the OS, you can be sure that your Airport Card will keep working. |
Well, duh. That holds true in the Windows world, too. If you stick with big name brands, like Dell, and specific hardware, it's guaranteed to work through upgrades from say, 2000 to XP, or even 98 to XP.
One small note, however. The upgrade from Panther to Tiger is like an upgrade from XP SP1 to XP SP2. Of course things are going to keep working, hardware wise--virtually nothing's changed on the driver end.
quote:
And if you believe that Apple signed on with IBM without the reasonable expectation of a laptop chip, you need your head examined. I mean... seriously... that's just laughable. |
And to assume something about a company you worship for no better reason than hope is folly.
The reason I figured Apple switched from the G4 to the G5 had nothing to do with laptops, and everything to do with the fact that G4 desktop chips had come to the end of the line, and could not be made faster/better.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005 23:30
WTF are you talking about? I don't care either way. I'm quite glad that Apple has dumped IBM because IBM failed to do what it promised – namely come up with a reasonable notebook chip. They were supposed to do that and couldn't.
|