Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 2:42 PM EDT - U.S. Markets close in 1 hr 18 mins

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Apple Inc. (AAPL) Message Board

  • friend_of_the_deceased friend_of_the_deceased May 5, 2003 6:28 PM Flag

    Dvorak prediction

    I am sure this has been discussed on this board but I was wondering what the consensus was on Dvorak's prediction that Apple is going to use Intel architecture in the near future. He predicts Dell, HP, IBM, Sony etc will all be offering the Apple OS on their machines and Apple will start claiming a larger share of the OS market.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • >>Just curious to learn if you are still holding AAPL?<<

      Yep.

      Lurker

    • >>Actually, their whole website appeared to be down for "updating" or maybe they got hit by one of those nasty for Windows only viruses.<<

      Wouldn't that be ironic?

      >>Good night for now.<<

      G'night, TomCat. You're off those back fences early tonight. But I doubt I'll be on much longer. I'm yawning and hungry and have work to do. Which shall win? I don't know myself!

      B

      Oh, when I went outside earlier, I was wearing shorts, and eventually realized it had gotten cold again! Maybe we'll have a summer with no heat wave?

    • B,

      "Maybe PC Mag is trying to shield Dvorak from a lynch mob?"

      Actually, their whole website appeared to be down for "updating" or maybe they got hit by one of those nasty for Windows only viruses.

      LOL

      Good night for now.

    • Dvorak's article mentions making an Itanium/OS-X port. There are real problems with this idea. One is the real difficulty and expense of porting anything - OS or applications to the architecture. This has been mentioned repeatedly in the trade press. So how many applications such a port would end up with is probematic even with Intel money subsidising the process. In addition, an Itanium that people could afford to buy in a desktop would not have the huge cache and so on that they have had to resort to for benchmark results. Chances are the competitive PPC would cost less and just blow the doors off it. It's Intel's money pushing the Itanium, not demand from any superiority. Also the Itanium is basically an HPQ proprietary processor - the press reported that the Itanium II design team was mostly HPQ people after the Itanium I disaster. Apple would be buying an inferior processor best understood by a strong competitor. That has to be another reason the Itanium isn't exactly flying out the doors at Intel.

      Another problem with it, and high clock x86's from Intel is that the power inefficiency would make it harder and more expensive for Apple to do the nifty industrial designs that have helped keep things going. They could just restrict the peripherals that they would support to a manageable number. They would have to - I know the problem. I bought an ATI 8500 graphics card and it came up OK in W2000 but I still haven't gotten it to work on Linux, though it said Linux on the box, and it even causes trouble with QNX.

      Also, Microsoft has been good at keeping the user population and it's dedicated IT customers on the run. They understand labor markets well, it appears, and how to keep them on a short leash. One of the first things Wintel-oriented IT people do is to seek out and get rid of anything not Intel. They will do anything from just disparage it to misconfiguring networks to whatever. In their view half an hour spent on a competitive system puts them that much behind in the endless changes Microsoft has for them - it just jeopardizes their ability to survive. Remember, for years Apple or Sun systems required a fraction of the number of box-kickers that Wintel does even now. Lower life cycle costs didn't help. Similar considerations apply to users. Microsoft is a world-class game of Go player and the technical merit of its software usually isn't that relevant.

    • Dvorak is a complete idiot. In order for Apple to switch to the x86 platform, they'd have to recode their entire OS. While it's quite likely that they've got such contingency plans in place, they would never, ever do it. Why? Because all applications would have to be recoded to use the new architecture and why do that when you've got windows already dominating the x86 market? It would be suicide.

      Anyway, as others have stated, the IBM processor (970) is the highly likely successor to the G4. It's supposedly insanely great. 64 bits. Short pipeline and a whole lot of room to grow. Rumors have that it will start shipping at about 1.8 ghz. With the short pipeline, copious amounts of cache and the vector processing unit (known as altivec or the velocity engine on current G4s), it will be a chip to reckon with. Add to that, the low power consumption (especially when compared with intel's p4 offerings) and you've got a chip worth designing a whole platform around. All without having to change a single line of code to get it working properly.

      Rumor also has it that Intel is making a move away from the x86 architecture because it's so inefficient. They've been able to get speeds up so high because they've been extending the pipelines on them. This causes some significant problems and they know it. In addition, Intel's heavy hitter, the itanium uses a different architecture, and, you guessed it, the clockspeeds are way lower. Would anyone argue that they are less powerful than the P4? Maybe, but they'd have to be crazy or stock analysts. Anyone who knows better knows the x86 ship is sinking and it'd be foolish to jump to it now.

      Wait until June of this year when developers get a look at the 970. We'll have more information then. But everything I've been hearing (and that's a lot) indicates that the 970 will be the powermac's savior. And that's not just wishful thinking.

      Again, Dvorak is a complete moron. He said the iPod would flop when it was released. He said the mouse was a stupid invention. Do you really believe him now? You shouldn't.

    • Many here think it is completely illogical for apple to port their OS onto a intel platform. I disagree.

      First, who is the richest tech company in the world? MS. How did they make their money? By selling OS's not by selling hardware. If Apple ported to the intel platform, they would essentially be abandoning their old business model and parroting MS instead. Not necessarily a bad idea.

      Second, by moving to the Intel platform, they would gain not just lower cost but also significant computing power increase. Apple's hardware platform is seriously deficient because of Motorola's indifference to the PowerPC architechture. If you don't believe me, I invite you to review any of the many web sites that have done comparisons of current Mac and PC hardware.

      Lastly, people here are way overstating how much R&D Apple actually does to make a MAC. Essentially, all Apple does is design chipsets and motherboards. Everything else in a mac is a commodity product that is identical to Wintel hardware. This means that Apple's technological abilities only cover the same amount of area as VIA and Asus.

      • 5 Replies to zhiwong
      • >>First, who is the richest tech company in the world? MS. How did they make their money? By selling OS's not by selling hardware. If Apple ported to the intel platform, they would essentially be abandoning their old business model and parroting MS instead. Not necessarily a bad idea.<<

        Right. It's actually a terrible idea.

        >> Second, by moving to the Intel platform, they would gain not just lower cost but also significant computing power increase. Apple's hardware platform is seriously deficient because of Motorola's indifference to the PowerPC architechture. If you don't believe me, I invite you to review any of the many web sites that have done comparisons of current Mac and PC hardware.<<

        Post a URL to a review of comparative hardware costs, would you? I'd like to calculate the savings for myself. As an example of what I would expect, post a link to someplace that compares the wholesale costs of Mac motherboards vs. those of an equivelant Wintel MB.

        >>Lastly, people here are way overstating how much R&D Apple actually does to make a MAC. Essentially, all Apple does is design chipsets and motherboards. Everything else in a mac is a commodity product that is identical to Wintel hardware.<<

        So, where can I buy a sub-chassis for my G3/300 DT. other than from Apple?

        >>This means that Apple's technological abilities only cover the same amount of area as VIA and Asus.<<

        No, it just means that you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

        Lurker

      • by: zhiwong
        05/05/03 09:29 pm
        Msg: 280709 of 280736

        >>Everything else in a mac is a commodity product that is identical to Wintel hardware.<<

        That's true, with the exception of the iMac, Power Mac, PowerBook and iBook.

      • Many here think it is completely illogical for apple to port their OS onto a intel platform. I disagree.

        First, who is the richest tech company in the world? MS. How did they make their money? By selling OS's not by selling hardware. If Apple ported to the intel platform, they would essentially be abandoning their old business model and parroting MS instead. Not necessarily a bad idea.

        Second, by moving to the Intel platform, they would gain not just lower cost but also significant computing power increase. Apple's hardware platform is seriously deficient because of Motorola's indifference to the PowerPC architechture. If you don't believe me, I invite you to review any of the many web sites that have done comparisons of current Mac and PC hardware.

        Lastly, people here are way overstating how much R&D Apple actually does to make a MAC. Essentially, all Apple does is design chipsets and motherboards. Everything else in a mac is a commodity product that is identical to Wintel hardware. This means that Apple's technological abilities only cover the same amount of area as VIA and Asus.
        ----------

        (1) Your premise that Apple would have to change their "business model" to one of a software, rather than a hardware company is true. Apple would lose any of the advantages they once had being able to tightly integrate the OS with the hardware.

        (2) Confronting Microsoft head on as would be the case would certainly turn Microsoft into an aggressor, not just a competitor. I don't think Apple would offend Microsoft in the same way that Microsoft offended Apple by stealing Apple's thunder when Microsoft introduced Windows 95.

        (3) How would Apple handle licensing arrangements with Dell, Gateway, IBM, Toshiba, HP Compaq and others? Would they simply sell them the software? Would they have to implement all the unique characteristics for these supplier's products?

        (4) How would Apple handle the literal zillions of third party hardware and software?

        (5) How would Apple support this new hybrid "Intel/AMD - OS X Jaguar platform from the development standpoint of software? Would current Mac OS X run on this platform? No. Would all those apps have to be rewritten? Yes. Would current Windows XP (and earlier) apps run on this platform? No. Would they have to be rewritten? Yes.

        (6) Apple is not totally dependent on Motorola as you suggest. Apple has IBM as a supplier and their new PPC 970 chips are on the way. Intel will have no speed advantages when Apple implements the new IBM chips. Intel doesn't make a perfect product. They clock high but produce excessive amounts of heat and require more power. Motorola and IBM have produced better chips for Apple than Intel has for Dell and others. Clock speed is not the sole factor. If you believe this you have much to learn about this business.

        Now having pointed those factors out to you, how do you propose that Apple handle this situation?

        If you have those answers you are a better strategist than I'll give you credit for.

      • One more note, the new ppc chip derived from IBM's power4 looks pretty good so apple will gain major relief from their current performance duldrums pretty soon.

      • I think that Apple may release OS X for the X86 market and here would be the scenario.....

        One would have a choice...

        You want cheap? Buy OS X on a X86 platform..

        You want pure speed and other capabilities as well as style? Buy OS X on a G5 tower or portable...

        I think that because the new G5's that will be released will kick butt as Intel and AMD have some issues on the Windows side. So if my sources are correct, the G5's with the optimization that will be done in 10.3 and beyond will certainly make these things scream... Remember, Apple has a lot of optimizations scheduled for the next release as well as future releases and it will make the computers faster with just an OS upgrade..

        My guess is OS X for X86 will be for the cheap people that want cheap boxes and want another way to the OS X as Wndows is becoming the crap that we all knew it was.

    • >>You don't think a port of the Mac OS could compete with XP? Even with Intel going all out to make it happen?<<

      With nothing else changing but the porting, no.
      With OSX ported to the X86 platform, you can kiss Apple goodby.
      End of story.

      Lurker

    • You don't think a port of the Mac OS could compete with XP? Even with Intel going all out to make it happen?

    • >>He predicts Dell, HP, IBM, Sony etc will all be offering the Apple OS on their machines........<<

      In my opinion, it not only is not about to happen, it's not likely to EVER happen.

      The reason? Apple needs hardware sales to fund R&D. Since R&D costs are paid out of (to a great extent) hardware profits, Apple won't allow competition in that area.

      Lurker

    • Dvorak is a braindead jack ass with zero credibility. He is simply a sensationalistic journalist looking for a quick buck.

      IMO.

      • 2 Replies to yo_yo_mac
      • I heard him admit that on TV. Dvorak has been Apple's case from day one. I don't think Apple could ever do anything to make John happy, except maybe go out of business, but they who would he complain about?

      • < Dvorak is a braindead jack ass with zero credibility. >

        Although I disagree with his position on this issue (Apple using x86 family chips or other Intel tech), your characterization of Dvorak is way off base. He's considered one of the pioneers of modern computer science.

        Not at all a man I would call a braindead jackass in any circumstances and his credibility is actually quite high.

    • View More Messages
 
AAPL
518.30+0.34(+0.07%)2:42 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.