# AMD's Newest Licensee Is Officially Apple!



## kendall (Nov 19, 2002)

"As Hector Ruiz's keynote this morning at Comdex drew to a close, he invited Jon Rubinstein, Apple's senior vice president of Hardware Engineering on stage and welcomed Apple Computer as AMD's newest lisencee.

Rubinstien was quoted as saying, "while specific details will not be discussed today about our collaboration with AMD, expect great things from this partnership in the upcomming year and more information to be made available at MWSF.""

64-bit x86 Hammer technology here we come! 

More can be found here.

**edit** Sorry, someone I know (a PC user  ) IM me this and I got excited and posted it here without verifying it.  The link's URL was supposed to end in #22 but that still only brings up an unrelated Apple article.  Anyway, as far as I know, AMD didn't announce any new lisencees. **edit**


----------



## DMCrimson (Nov 19, 2002)

well, this might not necessarily mean that Apple is switching for x86-processors, but instead share technology with AMD, where both parties would benefit most of their know-how...


----------



## bbloke (Nov 19, 2002)

Your link didn't work. If your link was supposed to be http://www.amdzone.com/#2 instead of http://www.amdzone.com/22, then Hector Ruiz's keynote was referred to but there was no mention of Apple (unless I'm missing something?):

"Rob and I just got out of the Hector Ruiz keynote and after Q and A. Real quickly here are some key points.

Athlon XP 64-Clawhammer desktop name confirmed
Slash and Gibson digital guitars
power company business win with nForce powered Compaqs
Hammer wafer yields over 50% a month ago
64 bit Unreal demoed
400MHZ FSB nForce 2 demo, possibly new bus speed
IBM DB2 Opteron demo
Star Wars previsualization on Athlons"

Have you got any other links with more information?  All the standard Mac rumor sites seem rather downbeat after the keynote, which I wouldn't expect if there had been a major revelation.


----------



## edX (Nov 19, 2002)

your link gives a page not found error. and none of the reprots from members include anything about apple.


----------



## RyanLang (Nov 19, 2002)

I hope this isn't some kind of joke. I can't find anything relating to the quotes displayed in the post above on any site, including the rumor sites which are usually on top of things like this. Hopefully this will be cleared up soon! I'm going crazy here wondering if this John Rubi thing actually happened.


----------



## fryke (Nov 19, 2002)

My guess is that somebody is messing around with Itanium's account. He doesn't usually give false information out... There's NOTHING like this in the keynote news. You'd read about it even on zdnet.com or news.com by now. :/


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## kendall (Nov 19, 2002)

Hey, I made that coughdrop!


----------



## fryke (Nov 19, 2002)

Erhm... That Hit/Miss rate you mention for Steve Jobs, do you count Apple as a Hit or a Miss? The company is alive and well, you know. Or do you only count AFTER a project or company has died? Because then EVERYbody would get only misses. 

But it's good that you won't discuss these matters, like you say, because like that I can say whatever I want in this thread without you interfering again.

I personally think Apple is much stronger now than it was before Steve came back. The Spindler era is over, the Amelio disaster is over: Steve Jobs is back and Apple hasn't only revamped its image, they also - again - started to innovate the computer industry. And I think that's a good thing.

All you're saying is that Apple uses slower processors than what AMD and Intel have to offer. Well, yes. But a) processor speed isn't everything and b) believe me: Apple is going to do something about it.

But just go ahead and try to kick Steve out of Apple. I don't think it's a good idea, but you might as well try. I just don't know what exactly the options are. Apple without Steve Jobs is a bit like orange juice without oranges. (Oh, I'm comparing Apples with Oranges! Wow!)

I don't think AMD X86-64 is the way to go for Apple. It's an option. But that today wasn't the day chosen for such an announcement doesn't rule it out completely, and that's not THAT bad a thing, I guess.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 19, 2002)

And I just had my hopes high...
I can't find anything anywhere about AMD's new licensee though, which is a bit strange, because they were supposed to announce one... I can find no mention of it anywhere.


----------



## fryke (Nov 19, 2002)

there is no new licensee. the chain went like that:

many apple people on comdex -> amd keynote -> mmh? -> maybe apple licenses amd processors -> unlikely -> maybe somebody else will? -> okay, somebody will license amd processors.

the rumours were just wrong.

but to be a bit reasonable... imagine apple/amd had announced something like that today... do you think apple's just introduced powerbooks and ibooks would still have sold well? what about the powermacs and imacs?

apple would never allow such an announcement to be made without also announcing new products based on that chip announcement.

a (total) switch to another processor platform will be a very difficult move. and it will be apple announcing it. not some third party provider of just a part of the product.


----------



## Jason (Nov 19, 2002)

http://www.amdzone.com/#19
http://www.amdzone.com/#20

those were the tidbits ive found


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## MacLegacy (Nov 22, 2002)

I read in the newspaper in August about a possible Apple/AMD alliance and one thing caught my attention , because it would be so nice if it would come true!!

The possibility of new macs using an x86 processor, with Mac OS X converted to x86 (but they say apple would probably won't let ANY x86 use mac os x, and that the computers using x86 running os x would be apple-branded)
but the coolest thing is it might run Windows OS'es as well as Mac OS X ! That would own, switch to Windows for games/kazaa'ing, mac os x for.... anything else!


----------



## StarScream (Nov 23, 2002)

AMD is not going to make x86 Processors !!! 

AMD is going to make PPC processsors with RISC  APPlLE IS NOT GOING FOR X86 !!!

AHHRRGGGGGG I becomming mad about this !!!

AMD was making in the beginning of the company  RISC prossecors !!!!

STUPID STUPID STUPID RUMORS ABOUT APPLE GOING TO X86....


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## StarScream (Nov 23, 2002)

I personaly believe that AMD is going to make PPC processors, i dont know what is going to happen with motorola and IBM maybe a alience ? withe these three companies ? i dont know. But it doesnt make sence that apple is going to drop their PPC structure. PPC is Apple ... Sorry about the post above  no hard feelings.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 23, 2002)

There are other companies that let others make processors in license. Motorola and AMD have exchanged papers sometimes back in 2000, I reckon.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## Inline_guy (Nov 23, 2002)

Interesting, but I see things a little different, and maybe that is because I am a recent switcher and not an old school Apple user.  I have been a PC user my whole life.  Even while in Art School, when I was forced to use the candy colored iMac, I did not enjoy them.  Flash to today when I needed a new mp3 player and went looking.  I decided to stop at a mac reseller to see the iPod, and find out if I could use it for Windows.  Sure enough when I was there I played with a new iMac.  And I was like what is this?  This is not the mac OS.  Then they gave me the whole deal.  OS X.1 Unix Auqa. Blah Blah.  You know what.  I have never loved computing so much.  In fact I quit Art School (Computer Animation) for several reasons none the least being I hated COMPUTERS.

So I guess my feeling is this.

SYLLABICATION : in·no·va·tion

NOUN:1. The act of introducing something new. 2. Something newly introduced.

OTHER FORMS : in'no·va_tion·al ADJECTIVE

They did that for me.  They introduced the concept that a computer could be not only useable, but productive.  It could be fun.  It could be easy and powerful.  Maybe it is not innovation in the strictest senses.  But it was to me.  The act of introducing something new.  And I am frankly taken back by what Mac users are like.  They are whinny little babies.  I am so pleased with what I have.  And while my processor may or may not be the fastest in the world, I dont really care.  It gets the job done, and gets it done well.  Plus I dont have the typical male infatuation with big and fast.  Deal with it guys.  It does not make up for other short comings.

And I am glad Steve Jobs is not a business man like Bill Gates.  I think it would be better not to play the game then play it so dirty.

As for me.  I did not like the PC.  So I switched.  If people are unhappy with their macs switch.  I dont think there will be any hard feelings.  After all it is at the end of the day, still just a computer. 

Matthew


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## terran74 (Nov 23, 2002)

We do not know if MacOS will be any faster on an x86 processor.  

Place all bets on the 970.  It's an easier path to follow than the itanium vs AMD 64.  As it is, the 32 bit x86 out there now is not Apple's answer.  It's on the way out and it's time to start looking at 64.  Might as well go 970.


----------



## kendall (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by terran74 _
> *We do not know if MacOS will be any faster on an x86 processor.
> 
> Place all bets on the 970.  It's an easier path to follow than the itanium vs AMD 64.  As it is, the 32 bit x86 out there now is not Apple's answer.  It's on the way out and it's time to start looking at 64.  Might as well go 970. *



We do know OS X would be faster on x86.    

"Mac OS X uses an ABI designed for CISC processors, mostly ignoring RISC design principles."

http://www.unsanity.org/archives/000044.php


----------



## fryke (Nov 23, 2002)

that a) only matters for Cocoa apps and not Carbon ones and b) is one third party's opinion. they don't have access to the source code of the ABI afaik. also it's only part of the equation. we don't know exactly what it would be like. all guesses are 'more or less'.


----------



## kendall (Nov 23, 2002)

So a) it only affects Cocoa, which Apple wants everyone to start writing their apps in and b) it is one third parties opinion and that of an Apple Engineer.

"Thanks to the Macintosh Development oriented channel regulars and an anonymous Apple engineer for helping me with this article."

Anyone run OpenStep on x86 and PPC or maybe even Rhapsody?  From what I've read, Rhapsody was devilishly fast on x86 compared to PPC.  Could this be the reason?


----------



## fryke (Nov 23, 2002)

I had Rhapsody DR 2 on an AMD K6/200 and a PowerMacintosh 9500 with a 604/200 processor. So they were running at the same clock speed, were comparable processors at the time. The PPC version was faster for me, although I wouldn't say it was by 100%, maybe by 50%.

But Mac OS X has added quite a few things since Rhapsody, and Aqua is - as far as I can see - heavily dependent on AltiVec and/or graphics cards.

This is where the equation isn't easily solved. If most of Aqua can be done by your nVidia or ATi card, then it doesn't really matter whether there's a G4 or an AMD processor in the box. The system will feel about the same. If AltiVec heavily improves the look & feel of the OS, then AMD might feel slower although it has more raw processing power.

Yet, as we don't have comparable data on Mac OS X on AMD (in fact some even doubt its existence), I say we just can't say, really, rather than walking out on a limb.


----------



## fryke (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *I've heard a lot of people assume that AMD would just be able to make a PPC processor for Apple. What makes one think that IBM, or Big Blue would just hand over the ticket to AMD? AMD and IBM are direct competitors. I don't understand this logic at all. *



Motorola. Not IBM. Motorola has agreements with AMD. They've developed some things together. Not that I think it will happen, just that it _could_. I also don't see IBM licensing patents to AMD, but I do see that Motorola doesn't care THAT much about the PowerPC desktop business. But it might be interesting for AMD. A fresh new player in the PPC business would be welcome by Apple, as both IBM and Motorola have let Apple down in the past. Apple was clearly a fan of AltiVec from the very beginning. IBM said 'no, Apple!' and that pissed Apple off, so they preferred Motorola. And then Motorola let Apple down. They were not able to scale the G4 for over a year.

Now that IBM presents the PPC 970, Apple might just say: "Know what? Make Linux machines with that. We're going AMD." (If AMD is offering any such thing to Apple. Which is not TOTALLY off the boat, because Apple would be a large enough customer.)

And to Motorola, Apple would say: "We've had it. The alliance between IBM, you and us didn't work out as expected. Please accept that we're going AMD now."

But again, I don't say it's happening or will happen. I just say it COULD.

What I guess and think is that Apple is staying with Motorola for another two years. The PPC 7457 looks promising, the 7457-RM even more so. Without having to leave the G4's path, scalability finally arrives. Apple has shown that it can build computers that are more than its processors frequency. And if Motorola is recovering from all this, it will be a good partner again.

Apple likes options. And they WILL have options. They CAN abandon the AIM-Alliance by going AMD. And AMD would be happy to cover Apple's needs, as Apple's a partner that sticks to its partners (see Motorola) and has built a large awareness in the market. As much as AMD wants Dell or Sony to use their processors, they would want Apple to use them. There will be the IBM PPC 970, which IBM will surely be glad to sell Apple (in order to replace the G4 finally). And there will be Motorola's next generation G4 processors.

January 2003 will show updated G4s with 7457 processors at up to 1.6 GHz. And we'll see 1.83 GHz processors in August/September. Whether they'll be IBM's PPC 970 and 64bit or Motorola's 7457. And Apple will be competitive, because at the same time, they'll show the world what a notebook ought to be (like they did with the TiBook and iBook) and what an operating system can do.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## kendall (Nov 23, 2002)

As if this is anything new.  Apple has blatently disregarded the needs of its customers for years now.

Case in point, DDR memory.  It does nothing for the new PowerMacs yet Apple sells people on the idea as if it does.

Another case in point, the G3.  It should be at higher speeds than the G4 with a higher bus speeds as well yet Apple is afraid to release a 1.5GHz G3 with 200MHz system bus system.

Apple will never bite the bullet on its mistakes.  Instead, it'll make us suffer and endure them, never fixing the problem, just working around it.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 24, 2002)




----------



## TommyWillB (Nov 24, 2002)

I don't really know what I'm talking about, but...

Would the switch to _any_ 64bit chip be a massive change equal to the switch to the PowerPc chips?... i.e. wouldn't it require a lot of work on Apple's part to make it work?

The reason I ask the question this way is that they did this seamlessly last time... So my brain says they don't have to be locked into either the PPC or x86 architectures when choosing a new 64 bit chipset...

I would not be surprised if Apple was working on some sort of PPC / x86 hybrid for their 64 platform (think Caruso [sp?])... Heck, they may even surprise us with something completely new...


----------



## themacko (Nov 24, 2002)

Tommy, where have you been bud?  I haven't see you post here in a loooooong time!


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by StarScream _
> *I personaly believe that AMD is going to make PPC processors, i dont know what is going to happen with motorola and IBM maybe a alience ? withe these three companies ? i dont know. But it doesnt make sence that apple is going to drop their PPC structure. PPC is Apple ... Sorry about the post above  no hard feelings. *



You personally believe this? Do you have something that can actually back this up? Your personal belief doesn't mean anything (don't take that personally) unless you happen to be a head honcho over at AMD. AMD has always made x86 processors...even RISC x86 processors. AMD had an entire line of RISC x86 processors years ago. All their processors since then including the new 64-bit ones have many RISC attributes in their design. RISC can exist in either architecture, it is not tied to PPC. PPC is not Apple. Apple has switched platforms before, doesn't anyone realize this? They just happened to be produced by tthe same company but they ARE different platforms. Yes, I'm talking about 68k and PPC.
Excuse the lateness of my reply to this.


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *
> But Mac OS X has added quite a few things since Rhapsody, and Aqua is - as far as I can see - heavily dependent on AltiVec and/or graphics cards.
> 
> ...



AltiVec is no more than a vector processing unit, something AMD could easily add to their own chips for Apple...so we would be looking at no loss here at all, the only real difference would come in the processor. This is one of the many reasons I think a switch could be very beneficial... We'd have a higher powered processor running with an AltiVec compatable vector processoing unit (the only think that keeps the G4 somewhat close to PC's in bechmarks anyways) with the same powerful graphics cards...OS X would _fly_...


----------



## kommakazi (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Itanium, do we need to start a reform committee for conserned users of Apple's future?
> 
> CUAF
> ...



I'm not Itanium but I think it's a good idea


----------



## sheepguy42 (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by kommakazi _
> *AltiVec is no more than a vector processing unit, something AMD could easily add to their own chips for Apple...so we would be looking at no loss here at all, the only real difference would come in the processor. This is one of the many reasons I think a switch could be very beneficial... We'd have a higher powered processor running with an AltiVec compatable vector processoing unit (the only think that keeps the G4 somewhat close to PC's in bechmarks anyways) with the same powerful graphics cards...OS X would fly... *


This is true- the latest (though not that recent now) release of info on IBM's next PowerPC processor, though 64bit and with major changes, has a vector unit which supposedly is compatible w/ AltiVec. However, Apple has invested too much into promoting true RISC processors and the PowerPC, and denouncing the MHZ myth, to go with anything else any time soon. As for switching to an x86-based design, I agree w/ AppleTurns.com in that that will happen when Moto & IBM both fall into a deep, dark hole.


----------



## fryke (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *... however, if Apple is to go after enterprise or any other type of market, it will have to climb on board the industry standard, which at this time is x86.*



In the enterprise market, the leaders are companies like IBM (RISC chips like the Power4, the PowerPC 604, and in the future the PowerPC 970 and Power5), Sun (SPARC CPUs) or HP (also with RISC CPUs). X86 is rather the standard for PC gaming but not the enterprise market.

What Apple has to do if they want to heavily enter the enterprise market is to learn to provide high end business solutions. And they're on the verge of entering it. Reread the articles that were written at the time Xserve was introduced. How Steve Jobs talked about entering the market humbly.

They've entered it at 4th place, btw.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 25, 2002)




----------



## kendall (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *el linko
> 
> I've heard a lot of people assume that AMD would just be able to make a PPC processor for Apple. What makes one think that IBM, or Big Blue would just hand over the ticket to AMD? AMD and IBM are direct competitors. I don't understand this logic at all. *



Wait a minute, according to you this would be "invalid" since both AMD and IBM have "different industry categorizations."  AMD is categorized as Semiconductor - Broad Line and IBM, Diversified Computer Systems.  Since they both compete in different markets, how could they be direct competitors?  You might as well consider Microsoft and Mobil a direct competitor.


----------



## TommyWillB (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *Tommy, where have you been bud?  I haven't see you post here in a loooooong time! *


Boss: I need you to d a "little" project...
Tom: What?
Boss: Integrate our four Support Web sites with our TeamSite CMS and Siebel CRM uaing XML, Perl, ASP, and ColdFusion...
Tom: d' uh....... When?
Boss: In 60 days...
Tom: Drive to work -->Work 18 hours --> Drive Home --> Sleep for 2-6 hours
Tom: Repeat every day for 3 months with only 5 days off... 

...but I'm back now... 

Did they close Herve's while I was gone?


----------



## pedz (Nov 25, 2002)

two things:

1) The itanium chips from intel are SLOW.  real slow.  IBM spent tons of money as did a lot of other companies about two years ago on the itanium joke.  Intel can't make it go.  dell dropped it last year.  hello!!!  doesn't everybody already know this?  Its a really cool chip, has lots of really cool ideas.  But they just can't make it go.  I don't know what the speed difference is between AMD's version and Intel but I would assume that the Intel/HP version is at least in the ball park of the AMD version.

2)  PPC is an IBM concept.  So if AMD is going to make PPC's, it seems like IBM would have to be involved.  I'm not 100% sure of this but Apple doesn't own the chip or the patents in the chip.

But, I'm confused by all this speed talk.  The benchmarks I've seen put the PPC ahead on things like Photoshop.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 25, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 25, 2002)




----------



## kendall (Nov 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *You're comparing what I said about industry analysis to monopolistic competition--once again--two different things.
> 
> If anything, your comment is the exact reason why you cannot compare companies within different categories--some compete in more than one marketplace, making it impossible for a side-by-side analysis. Just because AMD and IBM have different categorizations doesn't mean they don't compete within the same markets. It just means that you cannot compare the two for analysis as they have different business designs.
> ...



The point is, they're not "direct competitors" and also, do you just make this stuff up as  you go? 

Lets for the sake of stupidity say they are direct competitors.  What are they competing for?  Processor market share?  No.  IBM manufactures CPUs that go into mainframes, video game consoles and Apple computers.  AMD's CPUs go into PCs.  Pretty much they're unrelated since their products facilitate entirely different markets.  AMD's direct competitor would be Intel.

Also, IBM sells, or used to sell AMD based PCs.  If they were direct competitors, that would be like McDonalds selling Whoppers. 

D'OH!


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 26, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 26, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Prove it Fryke, then I'll bother posting back to your comment. I'm tired of doing your homework for you. (In other words, give me some references to check for myself without having to take your word for it please). As far as I know at this point x86 is the dominant force in enterprise backends. If you can refute this with evidence to the contrary, I'll be more than happy to accept it as fact.  *



Okay, MacLuv. First a link that underlines what I've said, because you obviously don't know anything about that market: http://www3.gartner.com/5_about/press_releases/2002_10/pr20021028b.jsp

You'll find information about the hardware the respective companies are selling on: http://www.sun.com/servers/highend/ http://www-132.ibm.com/content/home/store_IBMPublicUSA/en_US/eServer/pSeries/pSeries.html and http://www.hp.com/products1/servers/operating/hpux.html

Now to your insults. I think I've had enough of your arrogance, MacLuv. You think I've asked you to do my homework? I may be out of school for a few years, but I know to do my own work. And I certainly don't rely on somebody who cannot simply agree that some of his statements are plain wrong.

It seems to me that you have some sort of ego problem. A rather big one. You spend most of your time on this board flaming others, trolling threads that may not even interest you - and yesterday I've even caught you creating a _new_ thread about Marklar (Mac OS X on X86, the perfect flamewar thread) citing an article dated August 30th.

You deny everyone (excluding yourself) some decent knowledge about computers in General, operating systems and Apple in specific. Yet you always have to talk about how your daddy was into computers early. Why can't you just rely on your knowledge and go into this world accepting that there are other people who know something?

In your last post, may I quote you, you say: "First of all, I think you've confused the word facilitate with supply. Secondly, you suggest that AMD and IBM are not direct competitors..."

Doesn't that show what your primary intentions are? First bash on a forum member's English, second on the content of his statement? That's just sad, MacLuv.

Because English isn't my own Mother Language, I have to tell you that there are a lot of people around here whose language isn't. Well, itanium's mother language IS English afaik, but if you start bangin' on things like that, I don't know what'll come next...

Maybe it would be best for you to take a break. Let all those threads rest a little. Hey, here's an even better suggestion: Go flame users on /. and come discuss here with manners.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 26, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 26, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 26, 2002)

Okay. So, you say, because X86 is the platform of businesses, Apple has to jump on board or cannot be on this market. You see that IBM, Sun and HP are using RISC servers successfully, yet you don't see the connection to your statement. You don't answer my posts, because you think only your arguments are valuable. Right? Cool.

Your arguments, however, are cheap. They don't hold much. Why would Apple have to go x86 for the enterprise market? Because x86 is standard? That's no reason. Not for the server and not for the client market. Unless you mean they oughta release Mac OS X for plain vanilla x86 hardware. We've discussed that a LOT. Read up the earlier arguments. Just search the forum. You can read our answers to your thoughts there.

HP DOES sell PA-RISC servers, if you take a look (again) at the links I provided.

Dell isn't in the highend server market, for example.

I'm tired of telling you the same things over and over again. You never seem to be content to get an answer. So maybe you should open a new thread in which none of us are allowed to answer. Then you can muse about your own thoughts instead of attacking other users of this forum.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 26, 2002)




----------



## edX (Nov 26, 2002)

ok, i would appreciate if anyone who wants to continue this thread, read this thread first. anyone who has already posted in this thread should definitly check it out because it contains the info on how i am going to deal with all this flaming.


----------



## fryke (Nov 27, 2002)

I think you should close it (not remove it). There'll be new info on X86, Apple, AMD anyway and somebody might start a new thread with a different angle some day. I don't think this is leading anywhere. And I've posted in that other thread, too.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 27, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 27, 2002)

As those points are likely to be off-topic (well, Apple ISN'T AMD's newest licensee, anyway), why don't you decide to either answer them in private messages or a new thread with a title that fits the subject(s)?


----------



## Luca (Nov 27, 2002)

Ed, Fryke said something important about MacLuv: his way is to open flaming threads for the mere pleasure of flaming. I appreciate that you consider bad manners and personal attacks as to be banished from this forum. But looking closer at most of MacLuv posts, whatever the words he uses, his style is indeed arrogant and he never puts constructive thoughts, just I/O polarized arguments, knowing that sooner or later an irritated reader will give his/her opinion. This tends to put MacLuv threads always high in the list, even if they really deserve little attention. If you don't prevent flaming for flaming to show up, I will leave this forum for ever. And believe me I'll will do.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 27, 2002)




----------



## kilowatt (Nov 27, 2002)

a few quick points:
1) you are all assuming an apple-amd colaboration would have to do with the main processor. Anyone who has ever taken apart a MacSE through today's power macs knows they are littered with AMD chips. AMD built our first SCSI chips, amonge other controllers. AMD may simply be building the latest internal blue tooth adaptor. Or high-speed IDE.

2) mach-o executables are not currently optimized for RISC (unlike their cfm cousins, like we had in os9 and have in osx as carbon apps). B ut that doesn't mean they couldn't be. There is massive potential here. All we need is some better compilers/assemblers/linkers. Time will tell.

...thats all folks!


----------



## paulboy (Nov 27, 2002)

There is a good thread at Appleinsider that discusses why AMD will not be Apple's route. To sum it up, Apple will not benefit by gaining parity in speed with X86 platform be it Intel or AMD, due to upgrade issues and OSX hack issues on X86. Bottome line, Apple loses out on selling Mac boxes, which the company does best and exist for (as well as selling a cool OS and nice iApps) If Apple became a CPU focused company, they, may sell some CPU upgrades but, we know what Apple's foray in to CPU upgrade led to. More importantly, Apple becoming CPU focused company may sell CPU's but not more Mac boxes.


----------

