Aaron
join:2001-12-04
Dayton, OH
| said by Tech-2005:
Who knows what Apple will do next ? I'm not talking about what Apple will do next, I'm talking about what Apple and developers are doing now, and that is compiling universal binaries that run on PPC and x86, as the Firefox developers in the original article have most likely done.
said by Tech-2005:
You are asking us to believe the words of a company that said that PPC was superior to Intel x86 CPUs and that PPC was their future hardware then not too many years later Apple says that they are going exclusively with Intel CPUs. I believe Apple said that because they believed it to be true. But how many times do I have to say this? I'm not arguing the superiority of one CPU architecture over another because architecture differences are not the reason Apple is starting a CPU transition. Your implication that Apple was wrong about PPC, so therefore nothing they say can be believed, is extremely fallacious.
said by Tech-2005:
I think that the real reason for Apple switching is having to read performance comparisons for the past two years between the AMD Opterons and P4s vs. dual CPU G5 based OSX systems "Real reason"? You have no special insight into this the rest of us are missing. The reasons Apple gave last month made perfect sense. IBM has been slow about developing chips Apple wants, and IBM can't reliably supply the chip volumes that Apple requests. There doesn't need to be any more to it than that. There doesn't need to be some "real" reason that's being hidden from us. Give me a break.
said by Tech-2005:
and seeing that those "technologically inferior" x86 systems costing far less money have been edging those supposedly superior expensive G5s in benchmark after benchmark. Get over it! I'm not arguing technological superiority of anything here, yet you keep bringing it up. Now I have to state this one more time: Apple's CPU transition is due to supply and roadmap issues, not architectural differences. If you want to have the PPC vs. x86 discussion, have it with someone else.
said by Tech-2005:
Maybe I am missing something here Yes! You're missing my point! (And just about everything else I've said.)
said by Tech-2005:
but how can you call a much more expensive PPC based computer system superior I didn't. (See this post and all of my previous posts.)
said by Tech-2005:
Having read the reviews your argument about PPC seems absurd. You don't even know what my argument is. I'm not arguing in favor of PPC or x86 or any CPU architecture.
Here, let me state my argument for you for clarity, and we'll see if you can form an appropriate response to what I'm actually saying:
Many people think the PPC architecture is superior to x86, and Apple was among PPC's supporters for many years. (***NOTE!!!*** I'm not arguing that PPC is or is not superior, since I don't know enough about the topic. RESTATED: I'm not arguing PPC vs. x86. ***READ THIS***) I mention some peoples' preference for PPC to counter the idea, stated by the original poster, that Apple "lied", which means they purposely mislead customers. I seriously doubt that to be the case. I think Apple sincerely believed in PPC.
Which technology is superior today is beyond the scope of this post. (Psst... that means I'm not arguing or making any statements for or against any CPU architecture.)However, more than a decade later, the supplier of Apple's PPC chips has let them down. IBM cannot supply the chips Apple wants, and IBM is taking far, far too long to develop G5 variants for portable devices, etc. Apple is transitioning to a new CPU type because of supply and roadmap issues, not because of CPU architecture differences.
At this moment, Apple has OS X for x86 running on par with the PPC version. They've had it for 5 years. Apple has the vast majority of its applications compiled and running for both PPC and x86 as universal binaries. It has for 5 years. At this moment, developers, like the developers for Firefox, are compiling universal binaries that run on both PPC and x86. Apple has gone out of its way to provide the tools necessary for a smooth transition from one CPU architecture to another.
said by Tech-2005:
Also, regarding someone's comment that this thread being outside the topic. said by Anonymous Coward:
You know, actually reading a post is a good idea before replying:
I think many would agree that the PPC architecture is technically superior to x86. (That debate is beyond the scope of this post.) More to the point, they said you're not reading my posts. |
