On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:57:11 -0700 Freddie Cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On June 9, 2005 12:43 pm, you wrote: > > Freddie Cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > If they went with AMD processors, then they would have to either > > > build or find someone to build a chipset. > > > FYI, AMD makes chipsets. > > Yes, and some nices ones at that, especially on the server side > (our new dual-Opteron boards use AMD 8xxx chipsets). But they > don't make motherboards, they don't make audio/video chipsets, they > don't make ethernet chips, and they don't sell everything all > nicely packaged up as a single "platform". > > I'm not saying that's definitely why Apple went with Intel. But it > does make sense, if you think about it for a bit. Going with Intel > gives Intel a place to show off their "complete platform > solutions", and gives Apple a single configuration to code for. > Going with AMD would require too much work on Apple's part to get > everything working together, and would be a pain to certify the > hardware configurations as "Designed for Apple". Just did a quick search and it looks like AMD does make some ethernet hardware. But video and and audio would be a problem. > This way, they just say that MacOS X will only run on Centrino2 > laptops, whatever the desktop equivalent of Centrino will be > called, and they're done. Intel takes care of the hard parts for > them. _______________________________________________ freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
