Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Apple to ditch IBM on Monday

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2005 1:16:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

According to News.com anyways.

Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips | CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Int...

Yousuf Khan

More about : apple ditch ibm monday

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2005 3:08:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>>>>> "Yousuf" == Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> writes:

Yousuf> According to News.com anyways. Apple to ditch IBM, switch to
Yousuf> Intel chips | CNET News.com
Yousuf> http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Int...

I dumped apple mac when apple switched to the powerpc. The best move I
have ever made. So apple mac will just another clone. AMD would have
been a better choice but hay Intel has the big BRAND NAME like
McDonald's.

I sure that Apple groupies will never notice the change.

Whatever.

Alan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2005 4:27:05 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Alan Walpool wrote:
> I sure that Apple groupies will never notice the change.

Either do I. The groupies will do whatever Apple the corporation tells
them to do. Haven't seen a bigger bunch of flocks of sheep who think of
themseles as trendsetters in all my life.

Yousuf Khan
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 4, 2005 7:56:37 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
>
> Alan Walpool wrote:
> > I sure that Apple groupies will never notice the change.
>
> Either do I. The groupies will do whatever Apple the corporation tells
> them to do. Haven't seen a bigger bunch of flocks of sheep who think of
> themseles as trendsetters in all my life.

It typically goes with a long beard and an Apple T-shirt :) 
June 5, 2005 3:00:56 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 15:56:37 GMT, Johannes
<johs@spamblock73546sizefitter.com> wrote:

>
>
>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>> Alan Walpool wrote:
>> > I sure that Apple groupies will never notice the change.
>>
>> Either do I. The groupies will do whatever Apple the corporation tells
>> them to do. Haven't seen a bigger bunch of flocks of sheep who think of
>> themseles as trendsetters in all my life.
>
>It typically goes with a long beard and an Apple T-shirt :) 
Also it somehow affects learning abilities and, for whatever reason,
sexual orientation ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2005 4:22:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>According to News.com anyways.
>
>Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips | CNET News.com
>http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Int...
>
> Yousuf Khan

And I previously thought such an announcement would only occur
sometime around April 1st of any given year.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2005 7:16:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 23:08:10 -0500, Alan Walpool wrote:

>>>>>> "Yousuf" == Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> writes:
>
> Yousuf> According to News.com anyways. Apple to ditch IBM, switch to
> Yousuf> Intel chips | CNET News.com
> Yousuf> http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Int...
>
> I dumped apple mac when apple switched to the powerpc. The best move I
> have ever made. So apple mac will just another clone. AMD would have
> been a better choice but hay Intel has the big BRAND NAME like
> McDonald's.
>
> I sure that Apple groupies will never notice the change.
>
> Whatever.
>
> Alan

If Apple switches to Intel, does that mean we will be able to run mac os
x, on X86?

If so then this could be a good thing, how many people would rather give
money to Apple, then to M$? if Apple does do this, and allows a foot in
the door, then its just a matter of time before the software will run on
other X86 cpu's. Time will tell if such a thing will happen, will the
average user be able to build a system to their liking and use Apple's OS,
this could put a lot of heat on M$ especially if its easy to install and
is fairly portable.

Gnu_Raiz
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2005 8:02:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 15:16:28 -0500, Gnu_Raiz
<Gnu_Raiz@uptime.notlost.net> wrote:


>If Apple switches to Intel, does that mean we will be able to run mac os
>x, on X86?
>
>If so then this could be a good thing, how many people would rather give
>money to Apple, then to M$? if Apple does do this, and allows a foot in
>the door, then its just a matter of time before the software will run on
>other X86 cpu's. Time will tell if such a thing will happen, will the
>average user be able to build a system to their liking and use Apple's OS,
>this could put a lot of heat on M$ especially if its easy to install and
>is fairly portable.
>
>Gnu_Raiz

I don't think Steve Jobs will ever sell an Operating System without a
computer attached. Here's a quote from Paul Thurrott on that subject:

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Gates offered to cede the OS market to Apple in the late 1980's if
Apple simply agreed to license their OS to other hardware makers.
Apple declined, forcing Microsoft to continue with Windows and, at the
time, an MS-DOS follow-up called OS/2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

See this page for more:
http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/18760/187...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 5, 2005 9:55:12 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Henry Nettles wrote:
> I don't think Steve Jobs will ever sell an Operating System without a
> computer attached. Here's a quote from Paul Thurrott on that subject:
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gates offered to cede the OS market to Apple in the late 1980's if
> Apple simply agreed to license their OS to other hardware makers.
> Apple declined, forcing Microsoft to continue with Windows and, at the
> time, an MS-DOS follow-up called OS/2.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrelevant, the strategies of the 1980's were for the 1980's. Factors
change, what made economic sense 20 years ago, may not make any sense
today, but then they may make sense again in another 20 years.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2005 1:30:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Not to be nit-picky, but I seem to remember it was an 88000, not a 68K
(or maybe the 68040, then the 88000?). That was Moto's attempt at
cracking the RISC market.

Porting NextStep to the other platforms was hardly done for strategic
reasons. It was totally out of desparation. The hardware was nothing
spectacular, and Motorola kept falling way behind everyone else. The
few apps that were actually available for the platform (Lotus Improv,
FrameMaker) ran like slugs.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2005 3:41:53 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Henry Nettles <hnettles@hal-pc.org> wrote:

> I don't think Steve Jobs will ever sell an Operating System without a
> computer attached. Here's a quote from Paul Thurrott on that subject:

I'll do you one better. Steve Jobs has already sold a few operating
systems without a computer attached. It's called NeXTSTEP. Steve
Jobs took NeXTSTEP from a M68K architecture specific OS to an
architecture independent OS and had it ported to x86, Solars and
HPPA workstations. He then sold the OS to whomever wanted a copy.

I bought a copy.

Steve Jobs then sold NeXT to Apple, managed to replace Apple's
management staff with NeXT's management staff, took NeXTSTEP
(aka OPENSTEP) and renamed it Rhasody. Rhasody became Mac OS X
Server. MacOS classic compatibility layer was then added to
MacOS X Server, and that became MacOS X. Now, it appears that
MacOS X will once again migrate back to the land of x86.

Stll think that Steve Jobs won't sell a copy of the OS without a
computer attached? Why? Because he didn't do so in the late 80's,
and that was a more important indication than the fact that he did
so in the mid 90's?

> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Gates offered to cede the OS market to Apple in the late 1980's if
> Apple simply agreed to license their OS to other hardware makers.
> Apple declined, forcing Microsoft to continue with Windows and, at the
> time, an MS-DOS follow-up called OS/2.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------

> See this page for more:
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/ArticleID/18760/187...


--
davewang202(at)yahoo(dot)com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2005 2:43:35 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

YKhan wrote:
> Henry Nettles wrote:
>
>>I don't think Steve Jobs will ever sell an Operating System withovt a
>>compvter attached. Here's a qvote from Pavl Thvrrott on that svbject:
>>
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Gates offered to cede the OS market to Apple in the late 1980's if
>>Apple simply agreed to license their OS to other hardware makers.
>>Apple declined, forcing Microsoft to continve with Windows and, at the
>>time, an MS-DOS follow-vp called OS/2.
>>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Irrelevant, the strategies of the 1980's were for the 1980's. Factors
> change, what made economic sense 20 years ago, may not make any sense
> today, bvt then they may make sense again in another 20 years.

Apple might be encovraged by svccess of iPod mini being able to move
to mainstream and think that now is the time to detrone the MS
in the mainstream OS market.

One more fvnny thing that I wish wovld happen - both Apple and MS
ditch their OS core and switch to linvx core, which than makes both OSs
benefiting from open-sovrce comvnity improvements and programs
rvnning on regvlar Linvx, Apple and MS OS became compatible... (well,
not realy, becavse APIs wovld still remain proprietary, bvt yov dont
have to vse them). So at least it wovld be possible to write programs in
compatible way.
The final revnion of all desctop OSs vnder no-evil open sovrce Linvx
ambrella... nice dream.

Regards,
Evgenij
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2005 5:54:23 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

There's quite a bit of discussion on /.
<http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/04/02382...;
surrounding the possibility that Intel will simply become a manufacturer
of a PPC arch chip.

Everything is just wild speculation at this point but it does seem like
there are some valid arguments in favor of the above idea.

~Jason

--
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2005 6:22:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Jason Gurtz wrote:
> There's quite a bit of discussion on /.
> <http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/04/02382...;
> surrounding the possibility that Intel will simply become a manufacturer
> of a PPC arch chip.
>
> Everything is just wild speculation at this point but it does seem like
> there are some valid arguments in favor of the above idea.

Except that IBM would never let that happen.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 6, 2005 8:24:04 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article <1118032206.621124.22180@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
gaf1234567890 <gaf1234567890@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Not to be nit-picky, but I seem to remember it was an 88000, not a 68K
>(or maybe the 68040, then the 88000?). That was Moto's attempt at
>cracking the RISC market.

Nope. The first NeXTcubes ran on 68030s. Most NeXT hardware ended up being
68040-based (there was an upgrade program of some sort for the '030 cubes).

_/_
/ v \ Scott Alfter (remove the obvious to send mail)
(IIGS( http://alfter.us/ Top-posting!
\_^_/ rm -rf /bin/laden >What's the most annoying thing on Usenet?

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCpHpJVgTKos01OwkRAq6KAJ9wBaroZm20UDv79CJUTZWE7NEtNgCeLLmj
R/7FXmgQgaBoZpK0p4zUf9c=
=mLeD
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 7, 2005 1:33:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 14:22:51 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote:

>Jason Gurtz wrote:
>> There's quite a bit of discussion on /.
>> <http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/06/04/02382...;
>> surrounding the possibility that Intel will simply become a manufacturer
>> of a PPC arch chip.
>>
>> Everything is just wild speculation at this point but it does seem like
>> there are some valid arguments in favor of the above idea.
>
>Except that IBM would never let that happen.
>
> Yousuf Khan

And it would make zero sense for Intel...
!