From the Bizarre-o-World File

I don’t see how.  Microsoft doesn’t need saving by any rational appraisal, and could have easily continued to use Intel silicon (or AMD for that matter) in the Xbox.  Apple, on the other hand, is on thin ice when it comes to processors, and has been for quite some time.  When it became clear that Motorola had given up on further development of the G4 or a successor (and eventually got out of the semiconductor business altogether at the end of last year), the only other viable option was IBM’s PPC970.  But IBM wasn’t about to sell the chip to Apple at a loss and slowly bleed to death because of it, as Moto’s semiconductor group did with the G4.  The only way Apple could build and sell systems based on the 970 at a reasonable price (reasonable by Mac standards, anyway) was to get them from IBM cheaply enough, but Apple doesn’t have the sales volume -- not by a long shot -- to get such a deal from IBM.  If IBM is going to invest massive amounts of money into designing the chip, they need to be able to amortize that cost over a large volume of chips, and Apple’s tiny market share is simply too small.  But with the announcement that MS will also be a customer for the 970, adding a heck of a lot more volume, IBM can sell each chip for a lot less, which means Apple can afford to build (and more importantly sell) systems around them.

The idea that Apple was "smarter" for using the 970 is absurd.  If you only have one choice, and you choose it, I don’t think that’s a terribly good indication of intelligence.

Did you even read my response?  All your new comments were answered and corrected by my previous response.

> So its almost as if IBM saves Apples butt, as well as saves Microsoft.

I already explained why this is utter nonsense.  It’s statements like this that make Mac users sound so crazy.  Do you have any concept of how successful Microsoft is?  IBM didn’t save Microsoft because Microsoft doesn’t need saving.  Every business on the planet would love to be as successful as Microsoft.

> From reports that I have read Apple also looked into Intel chip
> but decided against it.  So there was/is other options out there.

Imaginary reports, perhaps.  Intel doesn’t make any processors capable of running the Mac OS.  The x86 ISA is completely different from that of the PPC.  So either you made this up, or you read a "report" that was meant as a joke.

> They just decided to go with IBM.

Decided to go with their only option, as I said.

> Apple isn’t necessarily "smarter"

That’s right; I already established that.

I’m starting to think you’re actually an Apple-hater in disguise, trying to make Mac users look bad.  If it weren’t for the fact that you’re using a Mac right now, that might be my official analysis.  But in case you’re serious...

Your comments embody the archetypical case of an argument with a zealot of any variety:

• Zealot makes a false statement.

• Zealot is corrected by someone else.

• Zealot repeats the false statement or some variant thereof, without regard for the previous correction.

• Zealot is reminded that his/her argument has already been shown to be false.

• Zealot claims the whole issue is meaningless anyway.

• (Optional) Zealot resorts to making inflammatory remarks, which often are the fallacious result of the intellectual inbreeding of his/her particular zealot community, and which always are unrelated to the original argument.

It’s true that neither Microsoft nor Apple "invented" the GUI (leaving aside the issue of whether it’s even possible to "invent" such an obvious concept).  Both borrowed ideas from a couple of systems in use at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.  To say that they "stole" the idea is to be a whiney sore loser.  No one stole anything, and the courts agreed.

And yes, as the article says, Microsoft created a PPC version of the NT kernel to run on the IBM chip.  That isn’t trivial, but it certainly isn’t "recoding all their stuff" either.

> I’m not sure why you are sticking up for microsoft either.

I’m not.  Correcting your false statements about Apple’s "choosing" to use the PPC970, and about IBM saving Microsoft, isn’t sticking up for Microsoft.  I don’t like Microsoft very much, and I don’t use their software at all except occasionally for testing.  I run Linux on my desktop, my server, and my car computer.

> For those who do use them, understand that this isn’t as
> important as stability, and a "hey that makes sense mentallity"
> - I have used Win XP and I hate it.  It is so cumbersome.  So.
> Disorganized.  Its discusting to me.

That’s all entirely subjective.  I used to use Windows, from 3.1 through 95 and 98, to 2000 and XP.  Each release got more and more stable; XP was pretty darn good.  Mine crashed fairly often because of a buggy video card / video driver, but that isn’t Microsoft’s fault.  My mom’s WinXP system runs for literally months without rebooting.  And comments about "cumbersome" and "disorganized" are so vague and subjective as to be useless.  I find Windows to be decently organized and not at all cumbersome.

> As for Microsoft saving Apple - I still don’t understand where
> this statement has any validity in anything.  ... sell enough.
> Figuring that G5 desktops, Xserve’s and the Xserve raid system’s
> now currently have the G5 PCC970 chip in them.  And I am sure that
> the iMac’s, eMacs, and soon Powerbooks will also soon be equiped
> with them.  Its only a matter of time.

Your argument is "look, abc Apple systems use it, and soon xyz will too... it’s only a matter of time."  In other words, your argument has no basis in reality whatsoever; it’s purely wishful thinking.  My argument is based on the fact that Apple has less than 5% market share, and Microsoft has greater than 90%.  It is a matter of fact that Apple does not have any where near enough volume to buy significant enough quantities of this chip from IBM to repay IBM’s R&D investment.  To deny the fact of Apple’s miniscule market share and sales volume is to be a Mac zealot.

> Thats like saying Microsoft is helping Apple b/c Apple is using
> ATI video cards and now Microsoft using them, etc.  or Microsoft
> is helping Apple b/c Apple is using Western Digital HDD in there
> machines and well now Microsoft is putting Western Digital HDD in
> there XBOX thus Microsoft is saving Apple again!  Thats utter madness.

No, "utter madness" is turning a point inside out and backwards and then trying to argue against it, as you just did.  Maybe you don’t understand the difference between a CPU and a graphics card or a hard disk.  Lots of companies make graphics cards and hard disks that Apple could use in their machines.  Making those items is much less difficult, less expensive, and less time-consuming than making a CPU.  On the other hand, do you know how many companies have the capability to make the kind of CPU that Apple needs to run its computers?  Two.  And one of them just divested itself of that ability (or "liability" as was the case of having Apple as a customer).  That leaves just one: IBM.

> When has Microsoft ever helped Apple before.  Since
> you did state "again"?

Well, either you aren’t a Mac zealot after all, or you’re in severe denial.  Microsoft single-handedly postponed Apple’s certain destruction when it announced that it would port MS Office to Mac OSX.  That was a rather historic event in Mac history, and that was the first time.  The second time is now, when without a CPU, the Mac would have had a tough time existing.  You can deny market realities all day long, but that doesn’t change the facts.

> Have you even set foot in a apple store? Have you even
> used on recently.  1st grade doesn’t count either.

Every time I go to the KOP mall I go in the Mac store.  The store is fancy and Mac machines are pretty and I like playing with them.  And there are Macs all over my campus, so yes, I use them occasionally, since all the PCs are usually taken while the Macs are vacant.

Just to be clear, I don’t particularly like MS, and I don’t dislike Apple.  (And I use neither.)  Stating and commenting on what’s happening in the computing world doesn’t mean I’m sticking up for one or the other.

To me, the most interesting part of this whole situation is the phenomenon of Mac zealotry.  (And I’m not saying you definitely are a Mac zealot, but you clearly have some of the characteristics of one.)  When a person speaks about Apple, regardless of what they say or whether it’s true or false or indifferent, Mac users will jump out of their skin if what the person says isn’t full of praise for Apple.  If a Mac user makes fun of a PC, PC users don’t often break down and cry/scream at them.  But if a PC user makes fun of a Mac, the Mac user calls it "torment."  Mac users are a mystery wrapped in an enigma to me, not because they use Macs, but because of the way they act and the things they say.

...amidst the speculation that Apple would move to an Intel-based processor, Apple felt the transition would be too difficult:

While Intel is aggressive in achieving its performance and speed goals, Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base.  Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple’s short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term.  Every existing Mac program would potentially have to be recompiled to work on an Intel platform. These massive software changes were something that Apple wanted to avoid, and IBM had the solution.

Apple didn’t do anything like "look into" using an Intel processor.  As the article you just mentioned clearly states, there were rumors and speculation that Apple might use an Intel CPU, because Moto had given up on them.  And as this statement also makes clear, Apple could not have used an Intel chip even if they wanted to.  They would literally have to re-write the kernel and the rest of the OS along with every single program for the Mac, and every Mac computer currently in existence would be rendered instantly obsolete, never being able to receive a software upgrade again.  This statement is Apple’s denial of rumors that they were looking into switching to the Intel architecture.