AMD's Newest Licensee Is Officially Apple!
- Thread starter kendall
- Start date
kendall
Registered
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
Registered
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
Registered
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.
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.
kendall
Registered
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.
To illustrate my point simply, if you and I both had lemonade stands, but I also sold baked goods, it would be unfair to compare our businesses side-by-side, because selling baked goods adds another dynamic to my business--even though I still only have a lemonade stand.
D'OH!
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!
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.
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.
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.
edX
mac shaman
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.
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.
kilowatt
mach-o mach-o man
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!
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!