Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Intel Businesses Apple

Apple May be Intel Show Pony 481

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the what-does-this-mean dept.
Robert writes "Computer Business Review reports that the implications of Apple dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape. Apple stands to gain a competitive edge by partnering with Intel because it will have access to slightly cheaper stuff."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple May be Intel Show Pony

Comments Filter:
  • Skewed headlines (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dcclark (846336) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:24PM (#12795344) Homepage
    Is it just me, or are the headlines and summaries becoming more and more sarcastic and twisted, especially with regards to anything Apple-related?

    Apple May Be Intel Show Pony
    Indeed, twisted by the Dark Side of the Source, young Zawinski has become.

    And that's just on the front page this morning! It's not that I have anything against a little editorializing, but these don't even seem like relevant comments any more...
    • these don't even seem like relevant comments any more.

      Hi, you must be new here.
      Just wait until you read a thread with the word "evolution" in the subject ;-)
    • You'll note that the "Show pony" title was the title of the original article. Editorializing, perhaps, but not Apple.
    • by ravenspear (756059) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:51PM (#12795535)
      Apple has just released the first official benchmarks [www.amyd.ro] of the new x86 Mac. Steve was even kind enough to show how the P4 Mac related to the speed of the G5.
    • If the management of Apple really wanted to try something revolutionary, then the CEO would have selected the Cell processor currently being developed by IBM and a consortium of Japanese companies. Due to the huge economies of scale associated with the millions (billions?) of game units using the Cell, there will arise a large market of cheap computer components used to build the game units. Apple could then use the cheap components to build a computer that is as cheap as the cheapest IBM PC clone.

      The r

      • by FortranDragon (98478) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @05:03PM (#12797221)
        Arrggh! :-D I wish this fascination with the Cell processor would die. Yah, the Cell is derived from the Power architecture, but it is not a drop in replacement for a desktop CPU. It might not even be that great of a game console CPU. The Cell is designed to make graphics processing easier (well, to feed vector units, IIRC).

        Also, as a game console oriented chip, the Cell isn't about ramping up processor power/speed. It is about cutting manufacturing costs while holding the processing power steady. Do you really want Apple to make major transition to an unproven CPU architecture that is going to remain at the same speed over its lifetime? At least with x86 Apple has five years experience with making the code run. Going to the Cell would mean starting with no experience.
    • by porcupine8 (816071)
      Dude, that's just the title of the article. Neither the submitter nor the editors came up with the show pony line.

      In fact, once you get past "Computer Business Review reports that," the whole "summary" is just the first few sentences yanked from the article, with nothing to let you know that it's a direct quote. I hate it when they do that. If you're going to summarize, SUMMARIZE for pete's sake. If you're too lazy to do that, a few quotation marks do wonders.

  • by udderly (890305) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:25PM (#12795349)
    FTA Apple has said it would not allow Apple OS X to run on any machine other than an Apple Macintosh.

    Seriously, I'm asking...how would they be able to stop it? I must be missing something.
    • Put a dongle on the motherboard?
      I mean, they BUILD those computers, do you really think its so hard to check for some hardware details?

      Of course you could crack it somehow, but still..
    • how would they be able to stop it? I must be missing something.

      Yup, the ROM chip they inted to use to stop it.
      Reverse ingen...wha? Oh, was that someting that was legal before the DMCA? How quaint.
    • by wtmcgee (113309) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:41PM (#12795463) Homepage
      There are a number of ways, and it's silly to think any will work 100%. I think they'll use custom motherboards along with a custom BIOS that OS X will have to recognize to run.

      Of course the slashdot type crowd will find a way around it, but Apple will never sell copies for the general public, and they will never support it for non-macs. As long as they make it *difficult* for the general user to instal OS X on their Dells, etc.

      I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't "allow" it.
      • > I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't
        > "allow" it.

        Besides, if it's "naughty," then the hackers will try that much harder. If Apple just gave it to them, they wouldn't care. They want it to be difficult, so that they can brag about getting it working.

        jfs

      • ...but Apple will never sell copies for the general public, and they will never support it for non-macs.

        I agree with you that they won't support it on non-Macs, but not selling to the general public? That's just insane! OS X is currently sold to the general public, it's just that it does you no good if you don't have the hardware to run it on...
      • I think saying Apple will *stop* people from running OS X on their computers is a bit much. That's why they have said they won't "allow" it.

        Unless a big market for video cards, sound cards, etc springs up around the Apple machines, you won't have much in the way of drivers even if you do get OS X running on your Dell.
    • Off the top of my head, Apple will use some propritary chip on their motherboard, and an OS hook to check for it. Use the DMCA to prevent reverse-engineering it, cease - and - desist any website posting it. Bittorent will keep it alive, but the illegality under the DMCA and non-joe sixpack nature of the install will keep it relatively underground for quite a while. Apple will fight back with breaking compatability with each x.0.1 update, much like iTunes and DVD-Jon (fairtunes?)

      If you read ./, the above
    • eriously, I'm asking...how would they be able to stop it? I must be missing something

      One way is to put a chip in the system that only Apple has access to, and that is essential for OS X to function.

      For example, they could get ATI and NVidia to make special GPUs for Apple. OS X, especially with Quartz Extreme, pushes a lot onto the GPU, and if they made Intel OS X only support Quartz Extreme, and made that depend on these special GPUs, OS X would be very very very difficult to run on non-Apple hardware

    • There has been much speculation that Apple will use the inherent DRM built into Intel processors to control where Mac OS X runs. DRM does not only manage the "rights" of music and movies: it also can be used to limit where software runs.
    • Build hardware using custom northbridge and/or custom BIOS/OF/EFI, as well as custom motherboards.

      In OS X, create drivers only for the devices that Apple knows are in its hardware (eg. the only drivers included are those for the custom chipset, bootloader, what have you). Include no other drivers, period.

      When you control both the hardware and software, it's easy to make simple restrictions that make it difficult to install on your average x86. Who's going to want to install OS X if it doesn't include dr
    • by Weaps (642924) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @01:03PM (#12795620)
      As many people have stated, they'll do something to the hardware that will make it difficult. Nothing is impossible, but it will be difficult and not in any way supported by Apple.

      The real question, is why would you? I'm sure all you /. script kiddies will love the 'challenge' of getting OS X to run on that Asus cobbleware you put together with parts from CompUSA, and I would have too in the past. However over the 20+ year history of Apple, it has become clear that one truism of the world is that if you want to run Apple's stuff, you just gotta buy Apple's stuff.

      And that's really not such a bad thing. Since getting in with Apple with my Mac Mini, I now see that it kind of is worth the price of admission. It sucks that it has to be, but it also sucks that I have to give a % of my salary to the government. The user experience is such that I don't feel compelled to hack a toaster to run OS X. I'd rather just buy a Mac and be done with it.

      Hell, maybe the Intel Macs will be cheaper. I don't think they will, but then again the vast majority of the world (sans the Dvoraks) didn't think apple would ever switch to Intel.

    • It sounds like they intend to use some of Intel's fancy-schmancy new chipsets that have DRM built into them and are tailored to specific needs: This one for Apple, and maybe the RIAA & MPAA set.

      Then Apple will have instructions in the startup process (launchd?) to look for the Apple specific key encoded in the Intel hardware, and it will die if it fails.

      Finally, future version upgrades might be 'upgrade only' so that your $129 doesn't get you a bare-metal installable OS, just a launch-from-the-finder
    • by edwdig (47888) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @02:08PM (#12796013)
      Remember, a PC today is still based on the design of an XT. You've got bizarre things such as the 20th bit of the CPU addressing being disabled at boot time. Multiple interrupt controllers and DMA controllers cascaded off each other. You reboot a PC by sending a signal to the keyboard controller.

      PC motherboards are really weirdly designed, and have accumulated quite the collection of weird hacks to work around the early flaws. Since Apple doesn't care about backwards compatibility with older PCs, they can quite simply design a motherboard without all that crap in it. Enable the A20 line at boot. Replace the DMA and Interrupt controllers with better ones. Get rid of the memory gap between 640KB and 1MB.

      Get rid of the legacy PC crap and it'll require some rather serious hacking to get the code to run on a standard PC.
      • by ericdano (113424) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @03:31PM (#12796542) Homepage
        Thank you! Finally an intelligent post here!

        I can't see Apple using some generic PC board in a production Macintosh. They WILL use a board that they design, and it won't be like a PC board. As the above poster stated, Apple doesn't need to support Legacy crap.


        Just because the development machine is a standard PC, doesn't mean that the shipping product is going to be one. The development machine is to just get developers started in getting their code working on Intel powered machines. And Steve Jobs did say they would want them back (the machines). So, I'd think that in 6 months, a lot of Developers are going to be asked to send back the machines and receive real Intel Macs before they become available to the public.

      • One major thing they could do is to use EFI [wikipedia.org]. EFI can boot the system straight into 32-bit mode from the start. Requiring that OS X be booted from EFI would eliminate the vast majority of hardware right off the bat, not to mention having a host of other benefits.
      • What an utter misguided falsehood. Are you actually trying to fool people, or do you not know better yourself?

        While there are a few *compatible* modes from way back still supported in modern PCs (at no real added cost, financial or performance), these are almost unused in modern software.

        Perhaps you have not noticed how modern PCs have highly complex interrupt virtualisation/routing capabilities, programmable edge/level sensitivity, prioritisation, etc in their interrupt subsystems, or how 'DMA' has grown
        • Have you not been paying attention to the entire point of the thread? The issue being discussed is what could Apple do to make OS X not boot on a standard PC. We're not talking about making the systems entirely incompatible, just making it hard to get the system started.

          When you boot a modern PC, it turns on with the hardware set up just like the original XT. A20 line disabled, crappy cascaded interrupt and DMA controllers in use, etc. Yes, a modern OS will disable that stuff as part of the boot process, b
      • Remember, a PC today is still based on the design of an XT. You've got bizarre things such as the 20th bit of the CPU addressing being disabled at boot time. Multiple interrupt controllers and DMA controllers cascaded off each other. You reboot a PC by sending a signal to the keyboard controller.

        Your gripe about A20 is valid, since there is no way to create an A20 routine which will operate on all machines. Also, resetting a machine through the KBC may be kludgey, but at least it works every time. (You

    • Look, people are forgetting one fact about running OS X on run-of-the-mill PC hardware. And it actually has to do with PPC MLBs...

      There are plenty of cheaper, more standardized PPC MLBs available from various vendors like TerraSoft and Pegasos. They are G3s or G4s, some with standard PC-style serial ports, etc. OS X does not run on these boards. That is because the Mac needs a custom boot ROM. If people were able to slap together a cheaper PPC box (which they can) and then put OS X on it (which they c
  • by AAeyers (857625) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:27PM (#12795362) Journal
    But not as much as how slashdot is becoming Apple's show pony
    • by BasilBrush (643681) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:41PM (#12795468)
      Don't blame Slashdot. They are just reflecting the way things are going.

      Linux has lost momentum and OS X has gained it. More and more people have decided that there's no point in waiting for Linux to provide a good user friendly nix desktop where things just work, when OS X already offers it. People have waited long enough for Linux already.

      • by Anonymous Coward
        Linux is ready for the desktop. Just look at Sun Microsystems' Sunrays running JDS.

        You decide if I'm being serious or not.
      • Don't forget MS. (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Big Sean O (317186)
        Linux has lost momentum, but so has Windows. IE no longer has 90% of market share.

        Jobs said Intel Macs could run Windows, but he says "who would want to?". I think he's being disingenuous. I for one, would love to be able to dual boot Windows and OS X on an Intel-powered Powerbook. That's one less computer I need on my desk.

        Mark my words: more machines that _can_ run Mac OS X means more machines that _will_ run Mac OS X. Apple better have a good plan to make a Windows partition and an even better plan to
    • by ggvaidya (747058) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:50PM (#12795531) Homepage Journal
      Huh? I thought Slashdot was Google's show pony!

      This flipflopping must stop! I don't know who to worship anymore!
  • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:28PM (#12795375)
    Dell has proven that they only want to make cheap stuff... they used to brag they made "PCs" now they just make "clones" but make them cheaply. Intel needs somebody to really show off their cutting edge stuff...which no normal PC maker will do. Enter apple looking for a new partner. Intel just lost the Xbox account anyway.. and the writing on the wall is that MS will stab them in the back just as fast as every other partner.. It's foolish of Intel NOT to take the opportunity to develop hardware that breaks all the PC rules and start over from scratch.. frankly they'll be Intel's "demo" group and just let everybody else copy them.
    • and the writing on the wall is that MS will stab them in the back just as fast as every other partner

      If MS decides to stab Intel in the back, Apple can't make enought Macs to cover the shortfall.

    • Apple might also be a good way for them to break away from the x86 architecture. Unlike the Itanium, with Apple, they can develop a new design or modify an existing design. Apple has the ability to push it through and still have developer support. Apple can supply the missing ingredient that killed the Itanium.

      Suppose that this happens and they have some superior chip, we can expect some growth. Apple will handle the software side, attracting developers to the new architecture. Maybe they will be able
    • by HardCase (14757) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @01:19PM (#12795712)
      Intel sits on every PC standards group and is the 800 pound gorilla that sees to it that those rules are not only followed to the letter, but that companies who deviate from them suddenly find themselves without Intel's support - truely a death sentence in the PC industry.

      I'm on several of the JEDEC committees. Intel has no interest in developing hardware that breaks any rules.

      • But Intel *is* interested in new rules.

        They won't want to break the rules on, say, an existing interface standard. But they would want to introduce a new, better interface standard. Which they can do without breaking the old rules.

        For example, USB doesn't break the standards for parallel ports, but takes their place.
    • i wonder if Intel feels that they rely too much on M$ to show their power? the general public will never understand Linux on Intel benchmarks to show the power of Intel chips.

      when OS X is humming on Intel chips (it sounds like it will be sometime in 2007 before the towers and Xserves switch) they can put an Intel chip running OS X next to an Intel chip running MS windows. any pokiness on one side can be blamed on the OS.

      i am sure they also like powering what is considered the cutting edge personal compute
      • by SteeldrivingJon (842919) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @03:46PM (#12796637) Homepage Journal
        i am sure they also like powering what is considered the cutting edge personal computer company. for their market share, Apple gets a LOT of headlines and that can only help Intel's public profile.

        And it makes sense to support Apple on Intel.

        Up until now, Intel has had to rely on their periodic festival of dreck, where they feature some cloners' ideas of cool computer designs, which usually suck (PC ottomans?), and generally include something that looks an awful lot like something Apple recently shipped.

        It doesn't help that nobody is really betting their company on those designs succeeding.

        Now with Apple, Intel doesn't need to rely on second rate designers or whimsical-but-useless designs produced without any concern for marketability.

        And on top of physical attributes, these showpiece machines will be running OS X, which makes the Apple machines more distinctive. Otherwise, Intel has to say "It's an ottoman! That runs Windows! Isn't that... great?! Huh? Huh? Pretty cool, huh? Comfy, too! Haven't you wished your laptop was an ottoman sometimes? No? Oh. But, wait, you can get it with a Green Bay Packers logo on it!" (yawn)
  • Surely not... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by intmainvoid (109559) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:28PM (#12795377)
    Anyone who thinks the switch to Intel is all about cheaper components has surely lost their mind...
    • Exclusively Intel OEMs get large discounts.
  • Are you Kidding Me? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Enonu (129798) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:29PM (#12795381)
    When I walk into a store selling Apple components, all of the prices have seem to have been standardized. I walk into Fry's electronics, and the thirty inch flat-panel is $2999. I walk into an Apple store and the thirty inch flat-panel is $2999. I bet if I walked up to an Apple Factory, they would sell me the thirty inch flat-panel for ... $2999.

    Apple has never been in the game of "cheap" hardware, letting the market decide how much things will cost, etc. They like their components viewed as top-shelf, and I doubt things will change in the future. All Intel means to Apple is more profit, not lower prices for the consumer.
  • Stealing software (Score:2, Insightful)

    by iconara (644110)
    It seems likely, however, that users would be able to use Windows on Macs running on Intel. This may motivate some devious users to steal Mac software, which would be a new type of problem for Apple

    I'm confused by this logic. How would running Windows on a Mac lead to people stealing Mac software?

    And how is this a new problem? Fair enough, it's claimed that there isn't as much software piracy on the Mac as on Windows, but it must still constitute more than half of the install base? At least for home u

  • Quite true (Score:5, Insightful)

    by doormat (63648) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:43PM (#12795486) Homepage Journal
    Apple will be able display the tons of technology Intel has developed. Look at the cool shit they have every year at the Intel Developer Forum. Look how little of it has been adopted into the mainstream (BTX for example). Intel can put Apple on the cutting edge.
    • USB. (Score:5, Informative)

      by solios (53048) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @01:38PM (#12795823) Homepage
      IIRC, USB was an Intel spec. And intel shipped it, and it worked, and nobody - I do mean NOBODY - gave a shit. Good luck finding hardware, etceteras.

      Then in late '98, Apple dropped the iMac bomb.

      Not only were they using Intel's USB, they'd dropped everything else. You either got on the boat or you stayed behind. Now EVERYTHING ships with USB - a spec everybody refused to touch until Apple made it trendy and sexy to do so.

      Apple + Intel == a very, very good thing. Both companies will get to bust ass doing what they're best at.

      Feel the love.
  • Hey... (Score:3, Funny)

    by mojowantshappy (605815) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:47PM (#12795519)
    Not fair! I want to be Intel's show pony!
  • Jobs's Plan (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:53PM (#12795544)
    Here's what I think is Jobs's plan. Apple sales will crumble anyway over the next year--he knows that--so I think we can expect massive discounts to employees of major corporations, of the order of 70 percent off with no restrictions on the numbers sold to individuals within those corporations for personal use--they buy them for relatives, friends, and so on. Apple will take the hit for a while because that way lots of powerbooks with OSX get into the hands of non-IT people in big companies--the people with the money. OSX is so spectacularly good they won't be able to help themselves being impressed. Then in 2006, just when MS begins its "upgrade to Longhorn" push, these managers who have had cheap Macs for a few months will think, "Er, no, we won't, thanks, lets look at these new Intel Macs." Then: Profit!
  • by johnhennessy (94737) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:55PM (#12795557)

    It was a tough choice, but I doubt Apple moved to Intel for cheaper chips, or better processors. Intel has always developed chips that aren't x86 or IA64 for "research" purposes.

    I'd imagine that Apple are probably after Intels vast fabrication resources. They probably see that IBMs fabs will probably be under pressure to crank out chips for the XBox and Playstation.

    For the volumes of chips that those two platforms will need, its hard for IBM to justify Apple taking up their valuable fab space.

  • Itanium 2 roadmap (Score:5, Interesting)

    by shawkin (165588) * on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:55PM (#12795560)
    A low voltage Itanium 2 is coming at the end of the year in production quantities.
    The support chipset for the Itanium is also quite impressive.
    The Itanium roadmap shows support for up to 8 Itanium dual cores.

    I understand that the proposed Apple / Motorola/Freescale settlement involves an unlimited Altavec X86/Itanium license.
    I also understand that IBM is to make a significantly improved proposal to Apple about PPC supply and development within two weeks.

    If much of this is true, Apple would have interesting options.
  • the intel mini (Score:3, Interesting)

    by justforaday (560408) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @12:56PM (#12795572)
    After the announcement was made last week, I began to wonder about something. Was the Intel mini that was unveiled a few weeks ago made with Apple's blessing? Proof that Apple could very easily rerelease their iMac mini with an Intel chip/guts?
  • by rice_burners_suck (243660) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @01:06PM (#12795639)
    Eh? What the devil is going on here? For weeks at a time, nearly every other article here was about Microsauft Windoze Longtooth [slashdot.org]. I got good ROI on my investment in the notorious [slashdot.org] "Longtooth Post". Then Apple announces they are switching to Intel and suddenly every other post is about them!

    That's it, I'm starting work on "The Leopard Post" [wikipedia.org]. Where OS X requires the root password each time MOV EAX EBX occurs. Where the Finder realizes it's lost. Where Job Steves outsources the BSOD code to Gill Bates. And where Clippy finally comes to OS X.

    Apple Inside. Where do you want to think different today?

  • by SengirV (203400) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @01:16PM (#12795696)
    That is a 25+% profit margin on computer sales. To think this is going to chance is pure fantasy. It could if Apple did something totally radical to go head to head with Microsoft. But just switching a CPU will mean more of hte same thing.
  • by Captain Kirk (148843) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @01:33PM (#12795794) Homepage Journal
    The home media center market is going to be huge. Sony have PS3. Microsoft have Xbox3.

    Now Intel and Apple are teaming to take them on. and IMO have the engineering skill, market credebility and design genius to do very well.

    I can't wait...
  • by bpbond (246836) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @02:04PM (#12795991) Homepage
    Though likely subtle at first, the implications of Apple Computer dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape.

    So, uh, the implications start subtle but end by straddling, somehow putting their metaphorical legs on either side of a landscape? And who knew Intel was only announced earlier this week?

    Jeez.
  • NY Times article (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jmichaelg (148257) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @02:24PM (#12796116) Journal
    Yesterday's NY Times [nytimes.com] had an article reporting that IBM said Apple left because of pricing issues and Apple saying they left because of technology issues. Deeper in the article, there's a reference to IBM saying that Apple would have to kick in some cash if they wanted IBM to pour more resources into developing the PPC the way Apple needed it to go. It looks like both Apple and IBM are telling the truth - it was about both price and performance.

    With IBM looking at the hundreds of millions of units going to the console market vs the few million Apple would sell, it's easy to see IBM's point of view on this.

  • by DF5JT (589002) <slashdot@bloatware.de> on Sunday June 12, 2005 @02:40PM (#12796221) Homepage
    I believe that some people are way too bothered with Intel/Apple and are actually forgetting to look a little further into the future.

    IBM has just sold its PC-department and is yet actualy massively supporting the Linux development. While that started out on Intel/x86 boxes, it is now an operating system that supports an incredible variety of processor platforms, including the recently premiered Cell Processor.

    I believe there is a dying horse out there and it is calle Intel/x86. While it might have been a smart move on Apple's side to switch to Intel based processors in the short to mid term range, stragically speaking Apple has just abandoned its platform for the future and I doubt they will switch back to IBM in the foreseeable future. Apple customers would not accept another platform move.

    IBM is not interested in short to mid term profits, IBM wants a firm piece of the entire pie in the very long run.

    I suspect that IBM's unwillingness (or inability) to met Apple's demands for the G5, I tink this has something to do with its production facilities that are currently undergoing a massive reconstruction to meet the future demand for the cell processor.

    Give IBM another two years and it will have produces cell processors for workstations, notebooks and embedded platforms. Not only will they have the fastest platform available, they will also have an operating system available that is already tailored to the specifications of the computing platform of the future.

    Apple has had the opportunity to use that very platform, but decided against it.

    I am not so sure whether that was a really smart move.
    • by foolish_to_be_here (802344) on Sunday June 12, 2005 @03:35PM (#12796569)
      I worked for IBM's fab in Vermont for 15 years.

      They "cheated" on Apple in the early nineties, putting PPC production on hold, at a critical time for Apple to maxamize profits on other chips.

      How many times do you need your "domestic partner" cheating on you before you bail on the relationship.

      (Hi to all of my friends that laid off but came back as contractors!)
    • by Halo1 (136547) <jonas.maebe@NosPAM.elis.ugent.be> on Sunday June 12, 2005 @03:40PM (#12796596) Homepage
      Cell processors are in-order and therefore quite unsuited for general workstations and notebooks (unless all you do all day is performing matrix operations).
    • I believe there is a dying horse out there and it is calle Intel/x86. While it might have been a smart move on Apple's side to switch to Intel based processors in the short to mid term range, stragically speaking Apple has just abandoned its platform for the future and I doubt they will switch back to IBM in the foreseeable future. Apple customers would not accept another platform move.

      Now why would Apple owners care about another platform move? With all of the developers having to do work that makes pro

"I have just one word for you, my boy...plastics." - from "The Graduate"

Working...