On 17 Aug 2005, at 2:31 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 at 13:53, Darcy James Argue wrote:
The whole point is that after years of being
shackled by Motorola's and IBM's disappointing production, Apple had
little choice but to go with x86 processors or continue to be left
behind (especially w/r/t portables).
I thought that reason for the switch had been shown to be bogus, just
an excuse to mask their real reasons for the switch, which remain
obscure?
Not at all. IBM has denied it, of course, but since both Intel's and
IBM's long-term roadmaps are secret, we have no way of knowing if the
Apple line about long-term power-per-watt with Intel vs. IBM is
correct. Nonetheless, it's certainly true *today* -- Intel has
powerful, low-power notebook processors and IBM doesn't. That's
reason enough for switching.
It's also true that the G5 line has been *very* disappointing for
Apple. Steve Jobs promised 3.0 GHz G5's within a year of their
unveiling -- IBM didn't deliver. We were supposed to have G5
PowerBooks by now -- IBM didn't deliver. IBM's defense basically
amounts to -- "Well, we *could* have met Apple's demands. We just
didn't want to, because Steve Jobs is such a prima donna, so we
ignored him and focused on other things."
Regardless of whether that's true, there's clearly a lot of bad blood
between the companies, and Apple is such a tiny part of IBM's
business that it was always going to be difficult for Apple to get
IBM to devote resources to developing and manufacturing the G5 they
might otherwise devote to, say, their XBox and Playstation chips. Of
course, Apple will be a tiny part of Intel's business too, but at
least Intel's primary business is making desktop and notebook PC
processors.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
