i think that's a load of bs about it being because of cpu speed development. i think the real reason behind it is the drm (digital rights management) on-chip integration. i think apple's next gen of ipod and itunes are video bound. i think they are planning on making the move to add video availability to itunes (even now you can watch full screen movie trailers from within itunes) and with the drm that the new intel affords it will mean less r&d on apple's part since intel already has the sucker. and it will be easier to get licenses to make video media available if they can assure the original content providers that their property is going to be used legally. obviously this will not stop piracy, but even with all the free music on the net, itunes is still very popular. and the next logical step that i see is video of some kind. maybe start with music videos with the ultimate goal being pay per view movies or tv. the next gen ipod will most likely have support for video and the logical step would be for apple to supply video content for people to put on their new toy.
CPU speed has definitely been one of the issues. Apple has threatened IBM for a long time over it. When a layman goes to buy a PC, one of the major issues for them is the advertized processor speed, however many other things maybe used to boost the overall performance (I know this firsthand). However, IBM could not devote as many resources to it since it is also involved with chip development and manufacturing for Nintendo, PS2 and XBox. Given Apple's history of going it's own way, I am quite sure that they would not have given up if IBM had kept up with Intel over processor development. Apple very well knows that their coversion to Intel makes Intel a monopoly for all intents and purposes.
However, I am quite certain that digital media management via processors is one of the reasons too.
They are also going to intel because of supply reasons, PowerPC were ristricting there chip limits (how many they will make), and Intel isnt, ... "Intel are very happy that Apple has become a customer" Head of intel said that (just thought i would add that i read it in the paper) ... the first Apples installed with Intel will most likely be the Apple mini, which will be fully converted by the end of the year, and by 2007 all apple computers will be with Intel (this is in UK)
i wonder how long this has actually been in the works? i wonder if intel basically knew that if they put drm on chip that apple would jump ship? because it's interesting that both announcements came about a week or two apart.
I really doubt it, although it is not improbable. DRM has been an issue with PCs for a long time, and with all the security media companies are trying to put on audio and video, I think Intel's main target were those companies.
adityamahesh said this in post #3 : CPU speed has definitely been one of the issues. Apple has threatened IBM for a long time over it. When a layman goes to buy a PC, one of the major issues for them is the advertized processor speed, however many other things maybe used to boost the overall performance (I know this firsthand). However, IBM could not devote as many resources to it since it is also involved with chip development and manufacturing for Nintendo, PS2 and XBox. Given Apple's history of going it's own way, I am quite sure that they would not have given up if IBM had kept up with Intel over processor development. Apple very well knows that their coversion to Intel makes Intel a monopoly for all intents and purposes.
However, I am quite certain that digital media management via processors is one of the reasons too.
M.
exactly the reason why amd puts "equivalent" values to their processors. athlon 2000 = 1.667GHz
or at least that's what they used to say. its more just a marketing ploy now.
Well i have to say, only just buying an AMD, that it was cheaper then the Intel ones ... and slightly better, but i must admit there marketing isnt that great
i have been and always will be (until they go under) an amd guy. i've only owned 1 post-486 intel. and it wasn't that i was disappointed with it. it's just i've always liked amd more.
I just installed an AMD 2800 (2ghz 1gb ram) replacing my AMD (850mhz) chip. I am very happy with my AMD. My wife has a Celeron (1.8ghz 512 mb ram). My last AMD suffered a meltdown so to speak. Overheating caused the breakdown of the chip which turned into constant lockups.
