[geeks] Apple/Intel another (pre | per )ceptive article

[velociraptor]

On 6/21/05, Bill Bradford <mrbill at mrbill.net> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:56:11PM -0400, velociraptor wrote:
> > This was written/pub'd *last* July.  Some of it is way
> > off base, but some of it may pretty well explain why
> > Apple kept that "secret" x86 lab.  Surely Apple had
> > to know about cell by the time Jaguar was released.
>
> IMHO, the Cell was WAY overhyped.  Good for games, vector processing, etc,
> but bad for general-purpose computing from what I can tell.
>
> Too many people acted like Cell was the second coming of Christ.

I know it's "geeks" but how about putting on the suit-tinted
glasses for a second?

I wasn't reading the article on the technical merits (ditto Jochen
:-)--the point I thought was important was his suggestion that
IBM might stonewall Apple on PPC advances in an effort to give
Cell the edge.

Doesn't matter if we think Cell is vaporware or not (Itanic v2?)--
the question is, would stonewalling Apple be something in their
business strategy & tactics box?  It makes a lot of sense to
me, that's all.  If Apple got the impression that PPC advances
were not on the IBM "roadmap", then it explains a great deal
about the jump to Intel.

It's too bad there's been no clues about why AMD wasn't the
landing pad--other than the DRM angle.

=Nadine=