Pentium M goodness.

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ~misfit~, Jul 15, 2005.

  1. ~misfit~

    ~misfit~ Guest

    As you may know I've always been a fan of the Pentium M, ('Banias' or
    'Dothan') thinking it's the only decent CPU Intel have produced in years. It
    would seem that Apple think so too. This article is a little old now but it
    seems that the world is waking up to the P4 debacle and seem to recognise a
    good CPU when they see it.

    From: http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050610_130806.html Entitled
    "Intel sees surging demand for Pentium M"

    "Recently, industry analysts have publicly speculated that Apple's CPU deal
    with Intel, announced earlier this week, could provide yet another boost to
    Pentium M demand. A failure on the part of Power CPU manufacturers,
    including IBM, to develop a G5 chip both small enough and cool enough for
    use in Apple's PowerBook models, is believed to be one reason for Apple CEO
    Steve Jobs' decision to move from Power to Pentium CPUs. If efforts to move
    PowerBook to a Pentium M platform so much as appear to be accelerated, say
    analysts, competitive notebook manufacturers may respond with increased
    Pentium M orders themselves."

    I've always naintained that the P4 was a dead end and the 'Tualatin'
    technology that Intel dropped a few years ago which is the direct father of
    the Pentium M was the best CPU they ever made.

    It seems the oft-quoted line from Field of Dreams is indeed true; "If I
    build it they will come"

    Now we just need to see this CPU, and it's derivatives, available more
    readilly in desktop machines.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Jul 15, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ~misfit~

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:33:02 +1200, ~misfit~ wrote:

    > "Recently, industry analysts have publicly speculated that Apple's CPU
    > deal with Intel, announced earlier this week, could provide yet another
    > boost to Pentium M demand. A failure on the part of Power CPU
    > manufacturers, including IBM, to develop a G5 chip both small enough and
    > cool enough for use in Apple's PowerBook models, is believed to be one
    > reason for Apple CEO Steve Jobs' decision to move from Power to Pentium
    > CPUs.


    It now turns out that it's a longer term issues than just getting G5s in
    Powerbooks. IBM has now announced new laptop suitable G5s, as well as new
    dual core G5s.

    Apple would've been privy to this, and will even make use of at least
    some of these new G5 chips in the meantime. After all Intel based Mac
    laptops are a year away, and the final replacement of cpus in all
    PowerMacs will be at least two years away.

    A major benefit to Apple in shifting to Intel is that they won't have to
    develop their own specialised motherboards and chipsets any more. They
    were putting in a lot of effort into designs that didn't get much
    economies of scale happening. With a shift to Intel though, they can just
    take advantage of all Intels chipset R&D - a bit like how FreeBSD does a
    lot of their low level OS R&D for them now ;)

    They aren't just moving to commodity CPUs, but to commodities for the
    whole system now.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jul 15, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ~misfit~

    Guest

    AD. wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 11:33:02 +1200, ~misfit~ wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Recently, industry analysts have publicly speculated that Apple's CPU
    >>deal with Intel, announced earlier this week, could provide yet another
    >>boost to Pentium M demand. A failure on the part of Power CPU
    >>manufacturers, including IBM, to develop a G5 chip both small enough and
    >>cool enough for use in Apple's PowerBook models, is believed to be one
    >>reason for Apple CEO Steve Jobs' decision to move from Power to Pentium
    >>CPUs.

    >
    >
    > It now turns out that it's a longer term issues than just getting G5s in
    > Powerbooks. IBM has now announced new laptop suitable G5s, as well as new
    > dual core G5s.
    >
    > Apple would've been privy to this, and will even make use of at least
    > some of these new G5 chips in the meantime. After all Intel based Mac
    > laptops are a year away, and the final replacement of cpus in all
    > PowerMacs will be at least two years away.
    >
    > A major benefit to Apple in shifting to Intel is that they won't have to
    > develop their own specialised motherboards and chipsets any more. They
    > were putting in a lot of effort into designs that didn't get much
    > economies of scale happening. With a shift to Intel though, they can just
    > take advantage of all Intels chipset R&D - a bit like how FreeBSD does a
    > lot of their low level OS R&D for them now ;)
    >
    > They aren't just moving to commodity CPUs, but to commodities for the
    > whole system now.
    >


    The HDs cdroms and Ram are commodity items already. I would assume that
    with the move to Intel we will see taiwanese laptop and desktop makers
    used for Apple kit pushing prices down further. Did the agreement
    include intel glue chips? or just the CPUs? not to mention Intel video,
    network ethernet and wi-fi chip sets....

    regards

    Thing
    , Jul 15, 2005
    #3
  4. ~misfit~

    AD. Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:47:52 +1200, wrote:

    >> They aren't just moving to commodity CPUs, but to commodities for the
    >> whole system now.
    >>

    > The HDs cdroms and Ram are commodity items already.


    Yep, and video cards to a certain extent. I think the motherboard
    and chipsets were the last major hold out that Apple still designed
    themselves for themselves.

    > I would assume that
    > with the move to Intel we will see taiwanese laptop and desktop makers
    > used for Apple kit pushing prices down further. Did the agreement include
    > intel glue chips? or just the CPUs? not to mention Intel video, network
    > ethernet and wi-fi chip sets....


    Yep it was wider than just CPUs. Apple will be using Intel for all kinds
    of stuff - a bit like how Intel does most of Dells R&D for them.

    I'm hopeful that the combination of lower R&D costs, better economies of
    scale, and better supply capacity will make Apple hardware cheaper in the
    coming years (unless of course Apple keeps them higher anyway). After all,
    I suspect the recent high prices were somewhat due to restricted CPU
    supply - especially down here in NZ where we have to wait in line after
    the bigger markets.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jul 15, 2005
    #4
  5. In article <42d715c9$>,
    "" <> wrote:

    >I would assume that
    >with the move to Intel we will see taiwanese laptop and desktop makers
    >used for Apple kit pushing prices down further.


    One of the Aussie PC magazines did an interesting comparison a couple or
    so months back. It was another of those "Build Your Own PC" projects,
    and they were careful to ensure all parts were sourced anonymously
    through regular public retailers, no special magazine-only deals. And
    then they compared what they'd built to an equivalently-specced Dell.

    And their custom-built machine came out a few hundred dollars cheaper
    than the Dell.

    The point is, Dell claim that nobody else can build a PC cheaper than
    they can. It may be true that nobody else can build _and ship_ a
    complete PC cheaper than they can, but anybody at home can build one
    cheaper.

    Apple is going to walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build
    your own Mac cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious
    restrictions against that are going to go away when Apple brings out
    Intel-based Macs.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 15, 2005
    #5
  6. ~misfit~

    Rob J Guest

    On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:04:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    <_zealand> wrote:

    >In article <42d715c9$>,
    > "" <> wrote:
    >
    >>I would assume that
    >>with the move to Intel we will see taiwanese laptop and desktop makers
    >>used for Apple kit pushing prices down further.

    >
    >One of the Aussie PC magazines did an interesting comparison a couple or
    >so months back. It was another of those "Build Your Own PC" projects,
    >and they were careful to ensure all parts were sourced anonymously
    >through regular public retailers, no special magazine-only deals. And
    >then they compared what they'd built to an equivalently-specced Dell.
    >
    >And their custom-built machine came out a few hundred dollars cheaper
    >than the Dell.
    >
    >The point is, Dell claim that nobody else can build a PC cheaper than
    >they can. It may be true that nobody else can build _and ship_ a
    >complete PC cheaper than they can, but anybody at home can build one
    >cheaper.
    >
    >Apple is going to walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build
    >your own Mac cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious
    >restrictions against that are going to go away when Apple brings out
    >Intel-based Macs.


    Nonsense.
    You will no more be able to buy proprietary Mac parts over the counter
    than you can buy the proprietary components that appear in laptops and
    brandname desktops today.

    Apple's hardly likely to use a generic motherboard (none of
    HP/Compaq/Dell etc do today) and there's nothing to stop them from
    using proprietary BIOS and even a special Apple only chipset from
    Intel.
    Rob J, Jul 16, 2005
    #6
  7. In <> Rob J wrote:
    > On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:04:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    > <_zealand> wrote:


    >> Apple is going to
    >> walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build your own Mac
    >> cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious restrictions against
    >> that are going to go away when Apple brings out Intel-based Macs.

    >
    > Nonsense.
    > You will no more be able to buy proprietary Mac parts over the counter
    > than you can buy the proprietary components that appear in laptops and
    > brandname desktops today.
    >
    > Apple's hardly likely to use a generic motherboard (none of
    > HP/Compaq/Dell etc do today) and there's nothing to stop them from
    > using proprietary BIOS and even a special Apple only chipset from
    > Intel.


    Apple haven't yet said what boot firmware system they'll use, but it
    certainly won't be an IBM PC-style BIOS. Intel's EFI looks to be the
    obvious choice.

    --
    Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
    http://vintageware.orcon.net.nz/
    ________________________________________________________________________
    No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

    Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"
    Roger Johnstone, Jul 16, 2005
    #7
  8. ~misfit~

    Mercury Guest

    Hmmm. To your usual standard.

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <42d715c9$>,
    > "" <> wrote:
    >
    >>I would assume that


    You assume? Never Assume! Is what you write below based on Fact or Fantasy?

    >>with the move to Intel we will see taiwanese laptop and desktop makers
    >>used for Apple kit pushing prices down further.


    Why? Apple makes Apple. When has Apple stated that it is opening the
    floodgates?

    > One of the Aussie PC magazines did an interesting comparison a couple or
    > so months back. It was another of those "Build Your Own PC" projects,
    > and they were careful to ensure all parts were sourced anonymously
    > through regular public retailers, no special magazine-only deals. And
    > then they compared what they'd built to an equivalently-specced Dell.
    >
    > And their custom-built machine came out a few hundred dollars cheaper
    > than the Dell.


    I'm lost for words on this. Right, so you want a cheap car? Build it out of
    retail parts? Sure. Does Dell buy their parts retail? If you wanted to
    compete with Dell would you follow the above formula? Would you set up a
    usual style, take orders, buy parts, assemble & sell model? Is that how Dell
    works (no, not at all).

    Whichever Ozzie mag that article was in, please don't but another.
    (I hope the above was purely a troll).

    > The point is, Dell claim that nobody else can build a PC cheaper than
    > they can. It may be true that nobody else can build _and ship_ a
    > complete PC cheaper than they can, but anybody at home can build one
    > cheaper.


    Firstly "Cheap". That word says a lot. Most people I know will avoid Cheap
    things. They tend to break and hard / expensive to fix. So, how is Cheap a
    good thing. In the above sentence you expect us to digest the word Cheap and
    without further thought mark it as a Beneficial attribute of a product when
    clearly it is not. You are suggesting we want to buy crap. I can't speak for
    everyone, but your logic fails here. I avoid crap and am also a member of
    the all / everyone group.

    Secondly, Dell charges shipping on top of the quoted price - usually $99.
    This is like adding insult to injury. There are also th hidden costs
    asociated with support and service. Never having purchased a Dell, I can
    only base my comments on reliable quotes from elsewhere. Suffice it so say I
    think most people are better off getting systems off their local uppliers
    than purveyors of Cheap.

    If you are going to quote someone, put quotes marks around it. Otherwise we
    are forced to believe that You actually wrote and Hold that opinion. I am
    doing my best not to insult you.

    > Apple is going to walk into the same bind.


    What bind? Do you want us to assume there will be some kind of bind? One
    that they have not thought about? I'd suggest they have put a lot of thought
    into "it".

    >Currently you can't build
    > your own Mac cheaper than Apple can,
    > but all the the obvious
    > restrictions against that are going to go away when Apple brings out
    > Intel-based Macs.


    What restrictions? You are asking us to guess again. Why are they going to
    go away? You are asking us to read your mind now. That idea revolts me.

    !
    Mercury, Jul 16, 2005
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    > Apple is going to walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build
    > your own Mac cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious
    > restrictions against that are going to go away when Apple brings out
    > Intel-based Macs.


    Apple have already stated that you wont be able to install their OS on
    just any Intel PC, you will have to have an Intel MAC to install the OS,
    so presumably there is something stopping you.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 17, 2005
    #9
  10. ~misfit~

    David Preece Guest

    AD. wrote:
    > After all Intel based Mac
    > laptops are a year away, and the final replacement of cpus in all
    > PowerMacs will be at least two years away.


    In all the excitement, I think a lot of people have lost sight of this.
    Like, it's going to be at least a year before you can even have an Intel
    based PowerBook (finally replacing the now-damn-old G4 PowerBook). It'll
    be at least two years before you'll be able to buy an x86 based
    PowerMac, there being very little wrong with the twin core G5's that IBM
    are now making. And it'll be at least three years before an appreciable
    proportion of the Mac user base are on Intel, where appreciable is a
    number bigger than 20%.

    It's also looking *very* much like the shift is going to be dead easy
    and certainly several orders of magnitude easier than either the 9->X
    move or the 68k->PPC move. But then they would say that, wouldn't they?

    > A major benefit to Apple in shifting to Intel is that they won't have to
    > develop their own specialised motherboards and chipsets any more.


    Yeah, I'm half sure this is what all this is about. You have to remember
    that right now Apple spends absolutely heaps developing north bridges,
    south bridges, memory controllers, all sorts of stuff that the x86
    industry can do better and cheaper. Imagine how much the R&D on the
    PowerMac chipset must be costing on a per-unit basis... Fifty US? Maybe
    more? In a world where Apple are now competing with Dell they have got
    to be wanting to get rid of that in a real big hurry. This is also the
    reason they're not going with AMD - they want a single supplier for the
    whole shebang, probably including the BIOS.

    > They aren't just moving to commodity CPUs, but to commodities for the
    > whole system now.


    Exactly. Leaving their competitive advantages being OSX, a close
    integration with all the digital media they are about to start shifting
    around (a la iTunes etc), and curvy aluminium boxes.

    Hey, works for me :)

    Dave
    David Preece, Jul 17, 2005
    #10
  11. In article <>,
    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

    >Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
    >> Apple is going to walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build
    >> your own Mac cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious
    >> restrictions against that are going to go away when Apple brings out
    >> Intel-based Macs.

    >
    >Apple have already stated that you wont be able to install their OS on
    >just any Intel PC, you will have to have an Intel MAC to install the OS,
    >so presumably there is something stopping you.


    That remains to be seen. What they're saying now could change 12 months
    down the track.
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Jul 18, 2005
    #11
  12. Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>Apple is going to walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build
    >>>your own Mac cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious
    >>>restrictions against that are going to go away when Apple brings out
    >>>Intel-based Macs.


    >>Apple have already stated that you wont be able to install their OS on
    >>just any Intel PC, you will have to have an Intel MAC to install the OS,
    >>so presumably there is something stopping you.


    > That remains to be seen. What they're saying now could change 12 months
    > down the track.


    True, but I tend to take the guy who runs the companies word over yours.

    --
    http://dave.net.nz <- My personal site.
    http://synaptic.net.nz <- Dunedin Based IT and ISP services
    Dave - Dave.net.nz, Jul 18, 2005
    #12
  13. ~misfit~

    Rob J Guest

    On 16 Jul 2005 11:42:36 GMT, Roger Johnstone <>
    wrote:

    >In <> Rob J wrote:
    >> On Fri, 15 Jul 2005 21:04:50 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    >> <_zealand> wrote:

    >
    >>> Apple is going to
    >>> walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build your own Mac
    >>> cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious restrictions against
    >>> that are going to go away when Apple brings out Intel-based Macs.

    >>
    >> Nonsense.
    >> You will no more be able to buy proprietary Mac parts over the counter
    >> than you can buy the proprietary components that appear in laptops and
    >> brandname desktops today.
    >>
    >> Apple's hardly likely to use a generic motherboard (none of
    >> HP/Compaq/Dell etc do today) and there's nothing to stop them from
    >> using proprietary BIOS and even a special Apple only chipset from
    >> Intel.

    >
    >Apple haven't yet said what boot firmware system they'll use, but it
    >certainly won't be an IBM PC-style BIOS. Intel's EFI looks to be the
    >obvious choice.


    Hmm... and current US law would kind of make it difficult to reverse
    engineer Bioses these days.
    Rob J, Jul 18, 2005
    #13
  14. ~misfit~

    Rob J Guest

    On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 00:19:04 +1200, "Mercury" <> wrote:

    >Hmmm. To your usual standard.
    >
    >"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <42d715c9$>,
    >> "" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>I would assume that

    >
    >You assume? Never Assume! Is what you write below based on Fact or Fantasy?
    >
    >>>with the move to Intel we will see taiwanese laptop and desktop makers
    >>>used for Apple kit pushing prices down further.

    >
    >Why? Apple makes Apple. When has Apple stated that it is opening the
    >floodgates?
    >
    >> One of the Aussie PC magazines did an interesting comparison a couple or
    >> so months back. It was another of those "Build Your Own PC" projects,
    >> and they were careful to ensure all parts were sourced anonymously
    >> through regular public retailers, no special magazine-only deals. And
    >> then they compared what they'd built to an equivalently-specced Dell.
    >>
    >> And their custom-built machine came out a few hundred dollars cheaper
    >> than the Dell.

    >
    >I'm lost for words on this. Right, so you want a cheap car? Build it out of
    >retail parts? Sure. Does Dell buy their parts retail? If you wanted to
    >compete with Dell would you follow the above formula? Would you set up a
    >usual style, take orders, buy parts, assemble & sell model? Is that how Dell
    >works (no, not at all).


    People building their own PCs don't pay labour charges, do they?
    Rob J, Jul 18, 2005
    #14
  15. In article <42dac066$>,
    David Preece <> wrote:

    >It's also looking *very* much like the [PowerPC-to-x86] shift is going to be dead easy
    >and certainly several orders of magnitude easier than either the 9->X
    >move or the 68k->PPC move. But then they would say that, wouldn't they?


    The 68K-to-PowerPC move was very smooth, all things considered. Users
    were hardly aware whether a piece of software was PowerPC-native or
    not--it just ran. Some things could have been done better from the
    developer viewpoint, but that's water under the bridge now.

    The MacOS-to-OS-X move, on the other hand, was totally ballsed up in my
    opinion. The "Classic" box was a terrible crock, very off-putting.

    Comments I've seen posted on the net about developer experience with the
    Rosetta emulation technology (PowerPC-on-x86) indicate that it works
    very smoothly and very well. So it looks like it might be more like the
    68K-to-PowerPC transition.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 19, 2005
    #15
  16. ~misfit~

    AD. Guest

    On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:56:06 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

    > In article <42dac066$>,
    > David Preece <> wrote:
    >
    >>It's also looking *very* much like the [PowerPC-to-x86] shift is going to
    >>be dead easy and certainly several orders of magnitude easier than either
    >>the 9->X move or the 68k->PPC move. But then they would say that,
    >>wouldn't they?

    >
    > The 68K-to-PowerPC move was very smooth, all things considered. Users were
    > hardly aware whether a piece of software was PowerPC-native or not--it
    > just ran. Some things could have been done better from the developer
    > viewpoint, but that's water under the bridge now.
    >
    > The MacOS-to-OS-X move, on the other hand, was totally ballsed up in my
    > opinion. The "Classic" box was a terrible crock, very off-putting.


    True about "Classic" being not so flash, but not so sure about the whole
    thing being ballsed up. Apple are now the better for it IMO. If they
    hadn't had a clean break like that, they'd probably have been in the
    crufty backwards compatibility situation Windows is in.

    Some temporary pain for long term gain.

    > Comments I've seen posted on the net about developer experience with the
    > Rosetta emulation technology (PowerPC-on-x86) indicate that it works very
    > smoothly and very well. So it looks like it might be more like the
    > 68K-to-PowerPC transition.


    The difference between a hardware and a software transition is that Apple
    controls the hardware, but it doesn't control the 3rd party software. If
    they left the backwards compatibility door open, some vendors would never
    redo their code properly.

    It pays not to leave the halfway house too comfortable, or the kids will
    never move out.

    --
    Cheers
    Anton
    AD., Jul 19, 2005
    #16
  17. In article <>,
    "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <> wrote:

    >Lawrence D¹Oliveiro wrote:
    >>>>Apple is going to walk into the same bind. Currently you can't build
    >>>>your own Mac cheaper than Apple can, but all the the obvious
    >>>>restrictions against that are going to go away when Apple brings out
    >>>>Intel-based Macs.

    >
    >>>Apple have already stated that you wont be able to install their OS on
    >>>just any Intel PC, you will have to have an Intel MAC to install the OS,
    >>>so presumably there is something stopping you.

    >
    >> That remains to be seen. What they're saying now could change 12 months
    >> down the track.

    >
    >True, but I tend to take the guy who runs the companies word over yours.


    How was that again?

    <http://wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,68501,00.html>
    Lawrence D¹Oliveiro, Aug 12, 2005
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. History Fan

    Thank Goodness for Firefox

    History Fan, Oct 19, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    658
    John Thompson
    Oct 22, 2006
  2. RJK

    OH MY GOODNESS !

    RJK, Feb 18, 2007, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,690
  3. ff

    Pentium III motherboard into Pentium II case?

    ff, Oct 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    756
    Robert Baer
    Oct 16, 2005
  4. Warmingup

    No thank goodness!

    Warmingup, Feb 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    282
    Warmingup
    Feb 6, 2005
  5. Goodguy

    Pentium M 1.0 = Pentium 4 what = Athlon what?

    Goodguy, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    696
Loading...

Share This Page