MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

And to think that Dell switched to AMD.

we need amd to be viable in this tech sector...
it's only good for the consumer.

Thanks for the weekend posts!

ALL HAIL HIS STEVENESS.

Steve Jobs definitely knows what he's doing, and he knew what Intel was doing. The doubters were wrong once again. But hopefully, AMD will get back on track and give Intel some serious competition. They are both good companies who have their ups and downs, just like all of us. We need them both.

Well the truth of the matter is... that Apple HAD to pick Intel because of the DRM schemes Intel created and Hollywood approved.

If Apple went with AMD they would have been playing catch up forever. Not to mention being always under supplied. Not good for expanding market share.

Apples war has never really been against processor families, sure it took advantage of the processor wars between IBM and Intel to sell more hardware. To those mass buyers who would strip off Mac OS and run Linux or something they brewed themselves.

Apple's war is for the consumer computing market and against Windows. It always has been.

"Well the truth of the matter is... that Apple HAD to pick Intel because of the DRM schemes Intel created and Hollywood approved."

Explain.

@ Qka: Dell didn't switch to AMD.

I'm happy withit.
So I say
Time will inTel....

Apple + Intel was a match made in Armonk. Intel was left jilted by Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft for the game market who switched for G5-based processors (cell, in Sony's case.) And IBM was suddenly less responsive to Apple's processor design needs, what with these new players visiting it's shiny chip squirting-waffle-stomping facilites. And Dell goes all AMD on Intel's ass, with no one willing to create a wintel-clone of Apple's Mac mini even though Intel prototyped the thing and was willing to show them how.... This is all documented history. 'nuff said.

I wish MDN would let comments get digged or dugged down. 'Cause TowerTone's was awful. But I'd still look anyhow...

Trusted computing.

It's an intel chip. It's inside . It sucks.

Look it up. It's the real reason your new Mac's are running intel.

MW=truth.....no joke

I should haved just said 'dugg up or down'. Sorry about my interenet lingo stupidity.

P.S. MacDude...I mean, um, Wiseguy, glad to see you're back!

Intel sucked AMD into a price war through the systematic use of secret rebates, special discounts, and threats to the PC manufacturers who were playing both sides against the middle because they were benefiting from the war.

The fact is AMD got started in the processor business in 1975 by stealing (reverse engineered) intellectual property belonging to Intel and then withstood a pounding in the courts and emerged victorious.

Ever since then, Intel has done everything it could, legal or otherwise, to destroy AMD and haven't bothered to hide their deceit, an all to familiar pattern of the rich and powerful.

Now that AMD stands on the precipice of financial ruin it is relying on the courts once again to bail them out and unfortunately you can't resuscitate someone who is already dead.

Hector Ruiz and Dirk Meyer are running AMD into the ground and I have no doubt that a five minute conversation would reveal their business philosophy is as shallow as the grave the PC industry is digging for them.

Imagine, spending billions for ATI at a time when you're hemorrhaging money and whose acquisition won't bear fruit for years to come. That's what you call flying by the seat of your pants! Oh, the drama...

If anything, the PC industry has proven to be extremely forgiving, but Wall Street isn't and even though they a slow on the uptake at times, they can be merciless when they smell blood. So AMD better wise up, stop looking for handouts and focus on the roll outs before they're DOA.

My 2¢

What chip(s) do you have inside your machine? How are AMD chips exempt from "Trusted Computing"? How often are you taking your medication?

Not the old "Trusted Computing" canard again.... please.

Apple has been using these chips for what, a year now?

The Intel version of Mac OS uses absolutely NONE of the trusted computing technology in Intel chips.

Clearly, if the main reason for the switch to Intel was the TC, Apple would have started using it in the Intel Mac OS. They didn't.

Therefore, ipso facto, it was not the main reason for Intel chips being used. I'm not saying Apple will never use it in any way, but clearly it isn't a priority. So please stop repeating this tired diatribe, people.

@®-
Cool. Then people could Digg us together...nagger guy.

Yes.............please keep up the weekend posts !!!


Cheers !

I´m rooting for AMD because we need competition in the chip market.

"Yes.............please keep up the weekend posts !!!"

I second that !

G4Dualie: "The fact is AMD got started in the processor business in 1975 by stealing (reverse engineered) intellectual property belonging to Intel and then withstood a pounding in the courts and emerged victorious."

You have a few facts out of place there, son...

Firstly, Reverse Engineering, when done legitimately, is perfectly legal, and <b>IS NOT STEALING</i>. That is, legally purchasing a commercially available product off the shelf and analysing it to determine how it works, is perfectly legal.

Secondly, AMD went into business in 1969, not 1975, and originally made logic chips.

In 1975, AMD did reverse engineer the Intel 8080, but Intel did not sue them, or at least not successfully, nor notably newsworthy if they did, as again, AMD did NOT steal anything.

It was in 1982, in order to get the contract with IBM for the chips in the IBM PC - with IBM's requirement of two sources of chips - that intel signed an agreement with AMD to produce 8086 and 8088 chips. The agreement was extended a couple years later wherein AMD was also producing 80286 chips.

In 1986, Intel that broke the agreement and kept the details of the new 80386 chip secret. IBM needed the 80386 to remain competitive in the burgeoning clone market, so couldn't just say "we won't buy from Intel anymore."

Meanwhile, AMD, not willing to just roll over and die, took advantage of the 80286 microcode that they had a licence to and manufactured their own chips in competition with Intel, and subsequently reverse engineered the 80386, and then the 80486, though they developed their own microcode for those chips, just as they had done for the 8080.

Of course, whilst all this was taking place, Intel and AMD were locked in a heated legal battle, which you correctly stated that ultimately, the courts, including the California State Supreme Court, sided with AMD.

Just for the record, and to be complete, subsequent chips, such as the K5, K6 Athlon, etc. were all completely in-house designed chips, not reverse engineered at all.

Maybe he was thinking of Cyrix-the company Steve really wanted to go with...

AMD, Market Cap: 7.88 Billion

AAPL, Total Debt: 0
AAPL, Total Cash: 11.87 Billion

Wouldn't it be fun?!

MDN Magic Word: larger
"Apple's gunning for something larger"

Fine by me Mr. Encyclopedia... aka appleman.

I never said AMD started as a company in 1975, I just stated they started in the processor business in 1975 and as far as RE goes whose to say what is legal and what isn't?

You sure go to great lengths to keep things in historical perspective. It's too bad you didn't get beyond my second paragraph because as verbose as your stuff is, we could have waxed philosophical on the merits of AMDs performance all afternoon but now I'm tired and I'm gonna' go kick the crap outta' some mesican mercs in GRAW2.

AMD is poo. IBM is wee.

AMD is the best thing that ever happened to Intel.

It should also be noted that the TPM chip that is "evil" isn't even in the new Core 2 Duo Macs, its only in the original "Core" based Macs, and that Apple never used it in the first place.

I cannot believe people still drag out that poor old flogged dead horse "trusted computing" as the reason Apple went Intel!

Trusted Computing was primarily driven by the chair throwing fools in Redmond (Microsoft for those that don't pay much attention to the whole Microsoft internal culture).

As mentioned on here, if "Trusted Computing" was such big reason for the switch for Apple, WHERE IS IT on Intel Apple Macs?

The reasons Apple went Intel over AMD are now clear - As was stated by Apple at the time, looking at the roadmaps of the major chip players, Intel had/has the better product pipeline. The new Intel processors are energy efficient, they are at 65 and 45nm fab processes ALREADY AND they are getting performance from these chips at reasonable temps to allow a decent NOTEBOOK which is where PC SALES growth is coming from!

Readers will note it is the same RABIDLY anti-Intel mob that wailed over when the switch was announced that are still on about "trusted computing". Their 1st position was PowerPC is superior to anything x86, 2nd position, Cell is going to BLOW anything x86 out of the water (even though it isn't a good processor for multitasking, desktop type functions, and required a COMPLETE re-WRITING of OS X for any POSSIBLE gains), and finally 3rd position AMD x86 is better than Intel x86! And repeat ad nausem till their fingers bled typing posts on these pages.


Apple may very well USE trusted computing in the future, but that isn't the REASON for the switch. If Apple had stayed with PowerPC, some sort of VERSION of trusted computing would have had to be developed on that platform, or even if they went AMD "trusted computing" of the AMD variety would have been used. Why because as Steve Jobs has stated he doesn't think DRM works, BUT the music labels and Movie Studios INSIST that Apple use it if they want to distribute content. So YES Apple MAY end up implementing "Trusted Computing" Intel style, but give up with the ONLY Intel would be as EVIL to implement "Trusted Computing". AMD and IBM would have done it too if Apple required it in order to allow them to distribute content. Again it must be noted however, Apple DOES distribute content at the moment WITHOUT "Trusted Computing" implemented, so you rabid anti-Intel bunch if Apple desperately needed "Trusted Computing" SO MUCH it dictated an entire processor family switch - PLEASE EXPLAIN?

My 2 cents,

Luke

PS - sometimes the reasons companies do things, like switch processor suppliers, is as simple and as innocent as "we wanted to access the processor platform with the best performance per watt". There isn't always a damned grassy knoll in EVERY event that occurs on planet earth! Sure they do exist, but not always.

"DRM BIO's" very interesting reading

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface

@Josie

EFI use in Mac OS X has nothing to do with DRM BIO, as it seems you to be implying. EFI is there for other more important things that go along the Apple main driving force: creating a user experience with its platform second to none. Period.

While the first few iterations of Apple's Intel machines included TPM hardware on the motherboard, MacOS X didn't, and doesn't, use it.

It was certainly never the reason that Apple left IBM/Freescale for Intel.

But then, paranoia is never very good at doing homework.

"EFI also has its own networking, so it can be used for remote diagnostics."

"EFI is almost entirely written in the (easy) C programming language and allows additions to be created using standard (easily accessed by anyone) programming tools.

Such additions can include much more detailed and useful diagnostics, self-configuration programs, and ways to sort out problems even if the operating system has died."

"Because EFI has its own filing system that lives on a reserved part of the hard disk, it can become the standard home for a whole set of utilities that have always had an awkward fit with the BIOS."

"Digital rights management and security designers also have an interest in EFI because it gives them a new level of control over the hardware."

EFI = DRM + REMOTE NETWORK ACCESS - MAC OS X - USER CONTROL

US Patent for anti-virus software residing in EFI - #6907524

What MDN fails to report on the frontpage (as always with links that don't jive with their bias) are the articles that mention AMD's resurgence with upcoming Barcelona processors that will bring back the performance crown to AMD. It's always a game of tug-of-war.

Re: Intel DRM

Yes, it was the reason for the switch. No, Apple haven't used it yet. That's b/c the video content they can reasonably offer is still substandard DVD quality.

Jobs was never that big a fan of the technology or it's purpose, but there was only so much he could do in the face of the demands of the content providers. Record companies who had absolutely no fear of Apple still insisted on Fairplay. Is anyone going to seriously contend that when Jobs went shopping his plans for video around, those studios didn't lay down the law? It would take mass amnesia on a grand scale to ignore the reporting that's come out, consistently, for the last 5 years on what those same players want DRM to do (make you a renter) and not do (allow any chance for escape). And it takes a colossal lack of imagination to miss how Jobs himself, being one of those content providers, had an interest at stake. Add in one near-death experience to the mix, where time suddenly becomes of the essense, and certain principled stands take second place to just getting a deal done. Hollywood's deal was 'hardware DRM - across the board'. Only one company could provide a ready-made version of it, relatively cheaply, but only if you bought the whole enchelada - CPUs & all - and that was Intel.

There's still a chance Apple will throw the monkey off their back, but that's only b/c they've since gained so much more mindshare, and a degree of power over the situation that comes from financial sucess. Also, Jobs is no longer a content owner (aka CEO of PIXAR), and thus has a less direct stake in that side of the equation. However, the proof in the pudding will be found in the capabilities and (hoped for) success of AppleTV. Distributed P2P is going to be built-in to each box, with the hope of aleviating USA's piss-poor bandwidth. If those TPMs haven't lit up by then, then maybe the storm has passed. Maybe.

Until that comes to pass, those of you still drinking the koolaid and regurgitating Steve-o's talking points, about PPC going nowhere (especially in the face of what's happening on the PPC side with lowpower, multicore, and almost hyper-clocked CPUs), are simply doing yourself a disservice. No, Apple probably won't leave Intel, but the longer the general public stays 'stupid' vis a vis the TPM angle, and how powerful a motivator DRM is for damn near EVERYTHING happening in computer industry these days, the easier you make it for Jobs to cave and light those little bastards up.

And then you'll have only yourselves to blame.

Oh, by the way, this article is FUD. It's a pro Intel piece b/c Intel is such a big part of the tech industry, and after the recent Asian Flu the analysts are doing everything they can to keep the prices of the biggest players propped up. For as long as Apple is a stock market darling, and the general market situation shaky, look for anyone Apple is associated with to get a lot of positve press. Keeps the sheep docile.

Intel is in much worse shape than AMD financially, at least in terms of debt & revenues (the most important aspect). Their manufactoring is contrained now only because they took on DELL as an OEM, and their traditional outlet (selling CPUs as standalone items) has been starved for product. None of AMD's manufactoring partners are hurting, and that's where the big money is. As they institute their next die shrink this year, AMD will be bringing things to a nice boil. Again, Intel has more problems than AMD there, as well over half of what they make (Netburst-based crap) is unsellable, but their too big to change it over any faster.

And as for the technology, all I can say is don't sell your stock. This next year will prove to be very interesting times for the tech community, and petty disheartening for Intel.