Interesting fight, who's going to be the winner?

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:24 am

http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/08/23 ... /index.php

Read this, lower prices may come...

braincell · Post by **braincell** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:42 pm

It's hype. Even if they are faster Apple has made a decision already. They take other intgs into consideration other than speed such as profit. It would be nice if there was honest competion but that is not the way things work.

Nestor · Post by **Nestor** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 2:44 pm

That make sense Brain, all I spect from this supposed struggles, is lower price for people to afford better computers arround the world.

Post by **garyb** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:12 pm

oh, THEN life will be livable...

Post by **hubird** » Wed Aug 24, 2005 3:18 pm

On 2005-08-24 13:42, braincell wrote:
... Apple has made a decision already ... They take other intgs into consideration other than speed such as profit.

speed is exactly the reason why Apple moved to Intel...
Like with Creamware recently, profit is the base for staying alife

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 12:43 am

hubird wrote:
speed is exactly the reason why Apple moved to Intel...

Hmmm, I thought it was because they got well chuffed off with IBM (who had decided to concentrate on the cell processor for mobile devices rather than 64-bit dual proc CPUs for Apple)

Royston

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 5:59 am

Think of all the valuable programming time currently being wasted in the plight to port apps accross to OSX when it has the same doughtfull longevity as everything else. Here potentially lies the true answer to why apple would go intel.

Post by **hubird** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 6:35 am

On 2005-08-25 01:43, Counterparts wrote:
Hmmm, I thought it was because they got well chuffed off with IBM (who had decided to concentrate on the cell processor for mobile devices rather than 64-bit dual proc CPUs for Apple)

Yes Royston, but I translate that as 'Apple looking for todays speeds'

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Aug 25, 2005 7:41 am

Most Mac users will no dought see it that way, so you won't be alone, Hubird.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Sun Aug 28, 2005 1:18 am

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Tue Aug 30, 2005 7:59 am

On 2005-08-25 07:35, hubird wrote:
On 2005-08-25 01:43, Counterparts wrote:
Hmmm, I thought it was because they got well chuffed off with IBM (who had decided to concentrate on the cell processor for mobile devices rather than 64-bit dual proc CPUs for Apple)
Yes Royston, but I translate that as 'Apple looking for todays speeds'

Well, if I had to bet on who could make the fastest processor (64-bit, dual-core, whatever) out of Intel and IBM, I'd stick my shirt on IBM, every time without hesitation. Who did Apple go to for the G5 processor? Intel or IBM? The decision to go with Intel now is more political than technical I would say.

http://www.apple.com/g5processor/

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 1:21 am

stardust wrote:
Its been said by hubird:

speed

And speed is not CPU speed alone but also, time to market, speed of cash in (aka ROI), maintenance and support etc.

Well, yes abviously as IBM decided to concentrate on the cell processor, which I'd already indicated. Apple had to go with somebody else to get a chip to market.

However, look at the last time Intel went for "speed" to get a CPU out there - the P4, which was a train-wreck of a chip when it first came out. They brought it out when they did only to follow their "new CPU every five years" marketing directive, regardless of its technical shortcomings.

Post by **garyb** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:24 pm

well, at least intel wasn't involved in schemes to tattoo serial numbers on prisoners in german death camps during ww2 like international business machines was......

Post by **hubird** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 7:36 pm

w-w-wha-t??
tell me more about it Gary, we're in OT anyway

Post by **garyb** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:06 pm

some relavant websites from a quick google of the subject:
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0241,b ... 111,1.html (this link may not render properly, it goes all the way to .html)

http://www.cmht.com/cases_cwibm2.php

and of course the book making the allegations:
http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com/

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-08-31 21:08 ]</font>

Post by **hubird** » Wed Aug 31, 2005 8:37 pm

pfew...I feel the need of getting rid of my Apple's IBM harddisk...

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0241,b ... 111,1.html

In one case, records show, a timber merchant from Bendzin, Poland, arrived at Auschwitz in August 1943 and was assigned a characteristic five-digit IBM Hollerith number, 44673. The number was part of a custom punch-card system devised by IBM to track prisoners in all Nazi concentration camps, including the slave labor at Auschwitz. Later in the summer of 1943, the Polish timber merchant's same five-digit Hollerith number, 44673, was tattooed on his forearm. Eventually, during the summer of 1943, all non-Germans at Auschwitz were similarly tattooed.

Tattoos, however, quickly transmogrified at Auschwitz. Soon, they bore no further relation to Hollerith operations for one reason: The Hollerith number was designed to track a working inmate—not a dead one. Prisoner deaths at Auschwitz climbed at a staggering rate. Various tattoo numbering schemes ultimately took on a chaotic incongruity all its own as an internal Auschwitz-specific identification system.

Thought I knew it all.
I know nothing.

edit: the link doesn't seem to be act like normal, while it IS correct, including the last part (black etc.)
oh, sorry, same as gary

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: hubird on 2005-08-31 21:44 ]</font>

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:39 am

garyb wrote:
well, at least intel wasn't involved in schemes to tattoo serial numbers on prisoners in german death camps during ww2 like international business machines was......

Yes, they certainly have a dark past. Which is why my PC has Intel components, but nothing from IBM...I'll choose ethics over technicalities any day.

Shroomz~> · Post by **Shroomz~>** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:50 am

A good attitude, but we still put petrol in our cars or bikes regularly. I do wonder how many have died during the liberation of middle eastern oil reserves in the last 10-20 years.

Shell oil bought rubber bullets for their african projects, blah, blah, i better shut up as the list goes on & it's been brought to my attention that i talk too much.

Counterparts · Post by **Counterparts** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 3:00 am

Aye, as I said in an off-topic thread recently (http://www.planetz.com/forums/viewtopic ... 7&forum=31), "it is important to consider what underpins our relatively prosperous societies and to acknowledge that, untimately, we all must assume some responsibility for that."

However, we can try to make ethical decisions within that, rather than just not giving a damn.

astroman · Post by **astroman** » Thu Sep 01, 2005 4:06 am

On 2005-09-01 02:50, Shroomz wrote:
...I do wonder how many have died during the liberation of middle eastern oil reserves in the last 10-20 years...

colateral damage compared to the effect the stuff has if fueling heavy, fast moving objects - not to mention it's future potential for continued pollution of environment...