On 17 Aug 2005, at 9:19 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Not at all. IBM has denied it, of course, but since both Intel's and
IBM's long-term roadmaps are secret, we have no way of knowing if the
Apple line about long-term power-per-watt with Intel vs. IBM is
correct. Nonetheless, it's certainly true *today* -- Intel has
powerful, low-power notebook processors and IBM doesn't. That's
reason enough for switching.
Except that IBM has made announcements of other chips that could do
the job if Apple wanted to use them. It's clearly *not* an IBM
technology problem, despite what Apple may be claiming.
I believe those announcements all happened after Steve had already
decided to cut his losses and the switch to Intel was a done deal.
If low-power, low-heat, mobile-ready G5 processors were available in
volume and at reasonable prices, say, a year ago, then why didn't
those chips ever make it into PowerBooks?
Intel has low-power, low-cost notebook-ready chips *now* -- in fact,
they've been shipping them for some time now. That alone would be
reason enough to switch.
- Darcy
-----
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
_______________________________________________
Finale mailing list
Finale@shsu.edu
http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
