On 17 Aug 2005 at 21:28, Darcy James Argue wrote:

> On 17 Aug 2005, at 9:19 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
> 
> >> 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.
> >
> > Except that IBM has made announcements of other chips that could do
> > the job if Apple wanted to use them. It's clearly *not* an IBM
> > technology problem, despite what Apple may be claiming.
> 
> I believe those announcements all happened after Steve had already 
> decided to cut his losses and the switch to Intel was a done deal.  

You think those chips were not in development long before Apple made 
its announcement? You think IBM said "Oh no! We've got to come up 
with a chip! To the labs, boys!" and two weeks later announced a 
finished dual-core processer?

No, it was there all along, and could conceivably have done what 
Apple needed, but Apple had already decided, for other reasons, to 
abandon IBM.

> If low-power, low-heat, mobile-ready G5 processors were available in 
> volume and at reasonable prices, say, a year ago, then why didn't 
> those chips ever make it into PowerBooks?

The Intel chips that Apple is going to use don't yet exist, either.

> Intel has low-power, low-cost notebook-ready chips *now* -- in fact, 
> they've been shipping them for some time now.  That alone would be 
> reason enough to switch.

Taking the time to re-architect your flagship OS (however much you've 
worked all along to try to ensure cross-compatibility), as opposed to 
waiting a few months for the new IBM chips?

It doesn't make any sense to me on technical grounds.

To me, it looks like a purely political move on Apple's part. What 
their agenda is, I can't say, but I don't think it had anything to do 
with the stated technical reasons, at least not regarding the chips 
available to them in the next 12-18 months.

-- 
David W. Fenton                        http://www.bway.net/~dfenton
David Fenton Associates                http://www.bway.net/~dfassoc

_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale

Reply via email to