Forums | MacLife

Well, excuse me for being asleep at 2:33 am.

its not often that the wall street journal reports on average "rumors".

macfiend wrote:

its not often that the wall street journal reports on average "rumors".

True but how many times has it reported that Apple is dead too?

Or it's one of the myriad of other technologies that Intel makes. You know, like AGP, USB, DDR2 RAM, PCI-E, etc... Just because Apple is talking with Intel doesn't mean they have to be taking about processors.

Last edited by akb825 (2005-05-24 12:50 pm)

I doubt anybody knows exactly what they're talking about. It's not like they alert every media company and say "OK, we're getting together and talking about integrating/renegotiating product xxx into Apple computers/iPod/other product." They just hear that Apple and Intel are talking about something, and immediately go "OMGOMGWTFBBQ INTEL PRO5350rz  IN TEH APPLE C0MPuT3rZ!!!11!!11!1!!!!"

The reality is Apple would be stupid to negotiate new processors. The G5, though not scaling as well as they thought it would, is not scaling any worse then Intel and AMD. Intel has been stuck at 3.8 GHz for what, at least a year now? AMD is managing only a .2 GHz increase as well, but their update isn't even out. Not to mention the fact that every single program out for OS X would have to be recompiled in order to work on the new processors. Older programs would be left in the dust. It would be like the move to OS X, except no legacy support. You'd essentially be starting with a clean state. Unless there were huge advantages, Apple wouldn't do that.

This whole subject has become a waste of human resources.

akb825 wrote:

Or it's one of the myriad of other technologies that Intel makes. You know, like AGP, USB, DDR2 RAM, PCI-E, etc... Just because Apple is talking with Intel doesn't mean they have to be taking about processors.

doesn't intel have a crapload of patents/IP WRT WiMax?

b_dubb wrote:

maybe the Intel chips are for the Mac Tablet?

Yes, I'm back with a LOOONG vacation from these forums., I decided to write because I had to laugh at this comment, though you meant it as true (maybe); it struck my funny bone.

Intel Processors most of the time run exceedingly hotter than Apple's current Motorola scheme. I wouldn't imagine the tablet being horribly powerful, short of Apple deciding to beef it up for some questionable reason. I'm merely suggesting they utilize the matured G4.

-walloo.

I agree, It's not too bad of a difference, I was looking up comparisons on watt useage, and didn't find any. I did come across that the G4 in powerbooks today made by freescale clocks in at 10Watts, while the Pentium M goes it at about 24Watts. Still, would help in tablet longevity per charge, not super-dooper collider computing power.

akb825 -- awesome; vacations are good everyonce in a while. It feels great to be back, and AppleInsider is like walking into a starved den of venomous kittens. (I don't know whether you go there or not, but it's almost that bad sometimes) I much prefer the atmosphere here; real conversation can take place.

I don't think Apple is going to use Intel chips in Macs.  Intel doesn't have a 64 bit processor that's worth a damn and Apple has too much invested in 64 bit software development to just give it up.  It would make more sense for Apple to go to AMD for processors because they have a viable 64 bit processor.  I think that MAYBE Apple is talking to Intel about using some of the Intel wireless technology or possibly they're considering using Intel chips in the Mac Tablet that everyone keeps whispering about.  But that's two rumors deep so I'm not betting on it.

b

Last edited by b_dubb (2005-06-02 2:48 pm)

Cyberpawz wrote:

Ok, and once you come back to reality I'll continue conversation with you... thanks

I must be out of touch, too- I think this has finally become likely.

Oh, and CP, so does Tuncer at IMG:

http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/ind … opic=20447