Apple Sales Leap 75%

gonaads

Beware the G-Man
Political Access
Joined
31 Mar 2002
Messages
18,474
Intel went in an entirely different direction on their 64bit instruction set for one reason only. To undermine AMD. If everyone went with Intel's design, AMD would pretty much eat it and die. But AMD got their 64bit set out first and it out did Intel's. Plus it would be ironic if Intel had to license/borrow AMD technology seeing as AMD and Intel had that technology agreement way back when. And Intel stumped AMD's growth then by not giving up anymore new technology info. I don't remember the full deal on that but I know there are many knowledgeable members here that rememeber it and most of the details.

I'm startin to babble now so i'm off to bed.

If any of my post is off the mark, please correct me. Thanks. :)
 

Son Goku

No lover of dogma
Joined
14 Jun 2004
Messages
1,980
I'd have to check the dates on Itanium, but do seem to remember that's been around for a little while... I was an MSDN subscriber when win2k and winXP were in beta, then released. I'm fairly certain Microsoft sent an Itanium version of winXP beta, but would have to look through my disks to confirm.

The major things counting against Itanium when it was finally released (after multiple delays) was the $4,000 price tag (or there abouts) and also that due to it running x86 software in hardware emulation, x86 software got executed rather slow... Given a certain lack of IA-64 compiled applications which wouldn't need to be run in emulation, there wasn't much up-take. I'm pulling much of this from memory however, so would have to search some things to pull articles.

Anyhow, on the release date of Itanium, I had pulled this:

http://www.pcstats.com/releaseview.cfm?releaseID=599

Manufacturers to Ship First Systems in June; Servers and Workstations From 25 Companies Expected This Year
SANTA CLARA, Calif., May 29, 2001 - Computer manufacturers are expected to introduce initial Intel® Itanium™-based servers and workstations in June, Intel Corporation said today. The company expects approximately 25 computer manufacturers to offer more than 35 models this year, as hundreds of hardware, software and application vendors provide products that support Itanium-based systems.

Someone might remember if this was the actual launch date, or preceded another delay...

Actually, Intel at the time did have a bit of a problem due to the release of the Athlon (which also bore some fruit from the AMD/Digital partnership, aka the EV6 bus used in the Athlon architecture for instance, was of DEC origin...)

At the time, I knew some people who were actually computer engineers, but one acquired a computer shop, and the other came out to help a life long friend. They built Intels, DEC Alphas, and Sun UltraSPARCs. Carol (the owner) was very much on the inside scoop wrt a lot which was going on wrt DEC, and we spoke/emailed each other quite frequently, up until the time she came down with a bad case of pnemonia she, unfortunately had not survived...

She and I also discussed some of the future proposals DEC had in mind (where they were planning on putting an end to the challenge IA-64 could pose at the high end, as well as the business relationship which existed between DEC and AMD at the time. Needless to say, DEC had held the performance crown against other manufacturers (such as Sun Microsystems) for quite awhile, and they didn't want to lose it to Intel :D

No doubt, Intel might have taken steps to try to make things more difficult for AMD, especially after AMD beat them at their own MHz myth, by releasing a 1 GHz Tbird before Intel was ready, and then being able to continue to clock their new CPU higher, when the old P6 arch (PPro through PIII), was towards it's limit for pushing the clock any further (without a die shrinkage).

The other side of this, is what happened with DECs engineering talent and the like. Intel bought DEC's fab, when DEC was in some financial trouble, and acquired various engineers who worked in the fab. Many of those however, chose to leave Intel and moved over to AMD...

Under that agreement, DEC got to keep it's development team, and they had already out-sourced some of their fabrication to Samsung... Was funny for awhile, as there were price wars that under-cut the price of the Alpha, and one could get a pretty decent one at mid-range PC (or x86, if that makes some happier) price points... I actually considered one as a second system for awhile, before the platform was no longer being produced.

Compaq had acquired DEC's development team, and began producing the Alpha, prior to dispensing it. It was from there, that AMD acquired many of these engineers from DEC as well...

I'd probably have to do a bit of searching to try to pull up links that could piece all this back together, if some are interested. That said, I can almost see us being asked to take this discussion to another thread, so this one can get back on topic wrt Apple's revenues :D

Certainly was an interesting turn of events all around; and yeah, it would be funny if Intel were to liscense x86-64 from AMD :D
 
Last edited:

SPeedY_B

I may actually be insane.
Joined
31 Mar 2002
Messages
15,806
Why do most threads regarding apple have to spiral off-topic into pointless debate ?
 

Shamus MacNoob

OSNN Veteran Addict
Political Access
Joined
8 Jan 2002
Messages
4,199
Must be the type of people that use Apple something about the way they are I guess

LOLOL
 

gonaads

Beware the G-Man
Political Access
Joined
31 Mar 2002
Messages
18,474
SPeedY_B said:
Why do most threads regarding apple have to spiral off-topic into pointless debate ?


Actually we are discussing the reasoning for Apple going with Intel as opposed to AMD and how maybe Intel is trying to use this to thwart AMD again (yeah, that one is a stretch) plus the situations with the Intel Chip's heat issues and Apple's heat solutions. Plus the issues of the CPUs in general and the comparisons that have been done between the IBM, Intel and AMD CPUs.

So there really is a point to this madness. :)
 

Sazar

Rest In Peace
Joined
12 Apr 2002
Messages
14,905
FWIW I can't see thermal issues being a problem with the Intel procs being used for Apple systems.

They are usually using well designed cases with good air flow and good heatsinks.

Further, do apple users overclock? If not would it really matter :)
 

Son Goku

No lover of dogma
Joined
14 Jun 2004
Messages
1,980
gonaads said:
Actually we are discussing the reasoning for Apple going with Intel as opposed to AMD and how maybe Intel is trying to use this to thwart AMD again (yeah, that one is a stretch) plus the situations with the Intel Chip's heat issues and Apple's heat solutions. Plus the issues of the CPUs in general and the comparisons that have been done between the IBM, Intel and AMD CPUs.

So there really is a point to this madness. :)

Well, one thing is certain, as I (and others have stated before). I'm sure the reasons are purely business in nature. Considering the number of fabrication facilities AMD has vs. Intel, the "perhaps sad" truth (for AMD that is), is they might not have the manufacturing capacity to meet a sales contract of this sort. Intel can meet it. And given that the accountants can be platform agnostics (and care more about meeting sales, then who's part it is); there one goes.

If AMD would want to secure a contract like this, they would need more manufacturing capacity. The problem is that fabs don't grow on trees :D As such, until they have the capital, it's rather unrealistic to build more fabs...

On the technical side; considering what Digital was working on (after Intel made their purchases), I'm not surprised that the company that got the bulk of the engineers from that company should have pulled a few things off, even with more limited production capacity.

I do wonder (but it really is beyond the scope of this thread); what happened to the patents Digital would have secured after Compaq dropped them. I'd have to check on it, but think Intel did acquire some of their intellectual property (from the time before their fab was sold). But they did get to keep their development team (and I would presume the fruits of any R&D from after the time of that sale). The EV8 (as well as the EV7 which included an integrated memory controller) was designed after that sale... Wonder if AMD got access to some of that IP (along with the engineers who designed it), did it stay with Compaq, or what?
 

Tuffgong4

The Donger Need Food!!!!
Political Access
Joined
21 Jun 2002
Messages
2,465
I still think the only reason Apple went with Intel was to get their hands on the Pentium M. There was thread here a while back that was talking about Apple having a hard time getting G5s into their powerbooks because of heat.
 

Goatman

Ska Daddy
Joined
2 Dec 2001
Messages
676
there are alot of reasons Apple didn't go with AMD.

The major one would be that Intel would be a cheaper and more reliable supplier due to their size.

Also AMD and IBM to alot of R&D together, so as far as Steve Jobs is concerned, they're the same company. And if Steve is pissed because IBM wasn't reliable enough, they aren't going to get in bed with AMD.

It's not really heat with the G5 is power consumption (which leads to more heat) THey always said they could put a G5 into a laptop... but you'd only get an hour worth of battery life.
 

Xie

- geek -
Joined
29 Sep 2003
Messages
5,275
SPeedY_B said:
Why do most threads regarding apple have to spiral off-topic into pointless debate ?
No idea. :/
Kermit_The_Frog said:
Must be the type of people that use Apple something about the way they are I guess
Most of the off topic chatter SPeedY_B was talking about I believe comes from non-Mac users. So if anything it would say something about them, right? :p

Also don't we have a Mac AMD vs Intel thread? (Found at least 2 - here and here) Wasn't this one about Apple sale figures? </ranting>
 

gonaads

Beware the G-Man
Political Access
Joined
31 Mar 2002
Messages
18,474
Sazar said:
FWIW I can't see thermal issues being a problem with the Intel procs being used for Apple systems.

They are usually using well designed cases with good air flow and good heatsinks.

Further, do apple users overclock? If not would it really matter :)


Can you OC the Apple PC much? *oops, I called it a PC :p*


I've heard of people trying to overclock their G4/867 to like 1 GHz. But are the hardcore Mac users as tweak happy as hardcore Windows based PC users?

Plus, as to the true topic... The sales figures that are being discussed. Are they mainly from Apple's iPod products or is there in influx of new sales of Apple PC's. I ask because the story link shows:

Analysts quizzed Apple executives about reports that the company was overstocked with some iPod models. Company executives declined to discuss particulars but denied that demand for iPods had cooled.

"On inventory levels for both Mac and iPod ended in targeted ranges," Apple's chief financial officer, Peter Oppenheimer, said on a call with reporters. "We are very comfortable with the inventory levels."

Executives told analysts not to read too much into the forecast, calling it "prudent" considering the uncertainty regarding the company's transition to microprocessor chips made by Intel Corp.

Oppenheimer said Apple is still unsure how consumers will react to the news last month that the company is dropping chips from IBM Corp. and Freescale Semiconductor Inc. in favor of Intel's.

Plus I wonder how that Law Suit about the iPod and it's software and interface that is pending will affect Apple sales. Especially if these sales numbers are more due to the iPod than their Computers.
 
Last edited:

Xie

- geek -
Joined
29 Sep 2003
Messages
5,275
gonaads said:
Can you OC the Apple PC much? *oops, I called it a PC :p*
Good use of proper terminology. A Mac is a PC. :)

I have heard of folks overclocking the Mac mini .. I'm new to the Mac world really so I'm not sure if this is really something new or what.
 

Son Goku

No lover of dogma
Joined
14 Jun 2004
Messages
1,980
SPeedY_B said:
Why do most threads regarding apple have to spiral off-topic into pointless debate ?

Good use of proper terminology. A Mac is a PC.

Actually, that was the beginning. The not liking of the use of the more generic and common term for PC; and then certain inaccurate assumptions that because of it's more common use one must be an Intel drone who bought Intel's marketing wrt clock speeds, or something of the sort. :suprised:

Problem with assumptions, is, as I heard while growing up assume (sorry, can't break it up properly due to the swear filter)... Assuming can make an a** out of u and me :angel: Well, that at least is what my father used to say, back when we were growing up :)

BTW, I never was one for political correctness, but that's another matter altogether :D

The thread probably should get back on topic wrt Apple's revenue though...
 

desie

OSNN Senior Addict
Joined
10 Jan 2004
Messages
307
I think the Mac Mini has really helped them to and they will get better once cheaper minis with intel cpus in them appear. If they do, more people will buy, my college just bought about 20-40 to fill a class room, they save so much space.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.
Terrahertz wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Yo fellas!
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Where are you buddy?

Forum statistics

Threads
62,004
Messages
673,460
Members
5,599
Latest member
Larry Chris