Topic: Apple on Intel (Read 19285 times)

Mnementh · « **on:** 06 Jun 2005, 11:02 »

So the MacNN feed is being dumtarded, but basically the Apple switching to Intel chips are turning out to be true. Apparently they're going to use Rosetta, an emulator to run PPC code on the intel chips until the phase over is complete, supposedly pretty fast and transparent to the user. Jobs demo'd photoshop CS and Word/Excel on this.

These are Intel based Macs, not just Intel boxes, so Apple is still in the hardware business.

Anyway, MacObserver has more.

c1utch · « **Reply #1 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 12:30 »

But the question is, whats going to keep us from ploping it on any old PC? They havn't specified that yet, but I'm sure there will be some way Apple keeps it off ... or will they take on MS?

Heh, the comments are so funny over at MacRumors: (read: "Apple you betrayed me")

Get over it people, Apple is a comapny, and companies exist to make money. If switching to intel gets them more money, then they will switch.

Mnementh · « **Reply #2 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 12:34 »

ROM, it will be made so that only Apple machines can boot OS X. However, they aren't doing anything to prevent people from booting windows on it.

nickyandthefuture · « **Reply #3 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 12:53 »

Yeah, Phil Shiller said that they're not going to support running Windows on Intel Mac, but he thought that someone was probably going to do it. He said that they're not going to allow it to run on non-Mac PCs. Keep in mind that while they're going to be running x86 chips, the Mac architecture is still very different from the typical PC (OpenFirmware instead of BIOS for one thing). It's probably possible, though. I just hope that Apple doesn't have to introduce any product activation bullshit.

I'm kind of mixed on the whole thing. I think that if Intel will make better chips, that's cool - I don't really care about the logo on a piece of my computer that I'll never look at. I just hope the transition goes well and I don't get fucked over for having a PPC computer. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on throughout the Mac community since we've been convincing ourselves for years that PowerPC is a better system, but if the new Macs run well, I doubt that anyone will care for very long.

EDIT: Really though. The Red Sox won the world series, Deap Throat was revealed, Bush got re-elected, and Apple just switched to Intel. Who fucking broke the universe?

Sideways · « **Reply #4 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 13:21 »

Quote from: nickyandthefuture

EDIT: Really though. The Red Sox won the world series, Deap Throat was revealed, Bush got re-elected, and Apple just switched to Intel. Who fucking broke the universe?

If my sig weren't dedicated to shameless self-promotion, that would TOTALLY be going in there!

Mnementh · « **Reply #5 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 13:30 »

Quote from: nickyandthefuture

EDIT: Really though. The Red Sox won the world series, Deap Throat was revealed, Bush got re-elected, and Apple just switched to Intel. Who fucking broke the universe?

Seriously!

-sam · « **Reply #6 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 15:14 »

Quote from: nickyandthefuture

I'm kind of mixed on the whole thing. I think that if Intel will make better chips, that's cool - I don't really care about the logo on a piece of my computer that I'll never look at. I just hope the transition goes well and I don't get fucked over for having a PPC computer. There's a lot of cognitive dissonance going on throughout the Mac community since we've been convincing ourselves for years that PowerPC is a better system, but if the new Macs run well, I doubt that anyone will care for very long.

QFT. IBM and Moto both have been dicking Apple for years. I still think that the PPC line is a more elegant solution than x86, but if PPC isn't going to be able to get Apple where they need to go then go with the solution that will work. I've heard a lot of predictions about the PPC roadmap that have never seen the light of day (dual-core G4's, Altivec-equipped G3s, 3ghz G5s), and over on the x86 side they just keep rolling along -- shipping dual-core chips for one. PPC is stagnanting, sorta. And the future of desktop/laptop market seems to be with x86. Doesn't mean I won't miss G5/Altivec though

What also bugs me is having to put up with all the Intel fanboys who will undoubtably start talking shit because of this decision.

Quote from: nickyandthefuture

EDIT: Really though. The Red Sox won the world series, Deap Throat was revealed, Bush got re-elected, and Apple just switched to Intel. Who fucking broke the universe?

That's going on my whiteboard at work tomorrow.

-sam

Addius · « **Reply #7 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 15:54 »

The x86 architecture is also stagnating so I'm a but unsure that Apples decision was that good but we'll have to wait and see..

As for the world series, how can you call it the world series when only people from not even a fifth of the world competes? wth?

-sam · « **Reply #8 on:** 06 Jun 2005, 16:57 »

Quote from: Addius

The x86 architecture is also stagnating so I'm a but unsure that Apples decision was that good but we'll have to wait and see..

It's progressing faster than the PPC750, there are dual-core procs aren't a pipedream for on...

Quote from: Addius

As for the world series, how can you call it the world series when only people from not even a fifth of the world competes? wth?

a) MLB is an international league, b) Teams are composed of the best players from around the world, c) if i hear one more smart-arse prattling about this i'll be very cross

-sam

mosfet · « **Reply #9 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 05:22 »

I 've been hearing the rumors for a while, and I've been really hoping that by x86, they were meaning AMD.

I'd love to see a dual-proc dual-core Opteron PowerMac.

The whole Intel thing I'm really sad about. Intel dual core chips are such a technical jerry-rig, not to mention the P4's issues. Apple really should have gone for the AMD line or possibly a modified Pentium-M with SSE2 (which I guess could still happen).

Theres some interesting reads out there on this. Inside Mac Games has thoughts and comments from game developers.

I saw mention of running OSX on a Dell, and Darwin has been available (sort of) for x86 for a while, but i kind of doubt they'll ship a "PC" version of OSX for retail. I think selling OSX for PCs would likely have a huge impact on Mac System sales.

sigh. In my dream world we would have G5 or Opteron PowerMac's with SSE2 and OSX with Direct X, and Pentium-M iMacs, iBooks, and Powerbooks. The day I see a P4 Apple machine will be the day Apple loses "Quality" points for me.

Sideways · « **Reply #10 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 08:05 »

Quote from: -sam

Quote from: Addius
As for the world series, how can you call it the world series when only people from not even a fifth of the world competes? wth?

a) MLB is an international league, b) Teams are composed of the best players from around the world, c) if i hear one more smart-arse prattling about this i'll be very cross

-sam

Players are recruited from around the world to play on AMERICAN TEAMS... thus representing different facets of AMERICA, not the globe.

Soccer is the only truly international sport.

Baseball's "World Series" is a joke.

It REALLY should be some sort of cup, or maybe even just "American Series" or something.

So get as cross as you want, you know as well as anyone that calling it a "World Series" is ridiculous.

Back on topic; I would've loved to see Sony and Mac work together, maybe using Sony's new Cell Processor. That would've been a less evil seeming marriage.

Mnementh · « **Reply #11 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 08:25 »

Quote from: Sideways

Back on topic; I would've loved to see Sony and Mac work together, maybe using Sony's new Cell Processor. That would've been a less evil seeming marriage.

To quote an engineer friend who knows these things better than I do...

Quote

On a different note, I keep seeing people say "Apple's dumb - look at the game consoles moving towards PPC it must be getting better!" Then they point to Cell and such as things they think Apple should be using. Cell is not a general purpose processor - it doesn't even have OOE right now! It does some things very well, but running a modern OS competitively would take some work. Also, consoles are stable targets that don't need scalable processors - computers are expected to get consistently faster. They don't guarantee success either - MIPS processors powered both the Playstation and Nintendo 64, and now they're dead - killed by Intel, in fact. Intel's R&D budget dwarfs what IBM was spending on 970 developement - this was pretty inevitable, IMO. </rant>

Addius · « **Reply #12 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 08:55 »

I agree with Mnementh's friend, the Cell architecture is not fit for general-purpose use. Heck, from what I've been able to understand programing anything worthwhile running on it involves running atleast 5 threads simultainiously, a feat I'd not try myself.

On another note, I also fully agree with Sideways concerning the "world series"

mosfet · « **Reply #13 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 09:06 »

And the Cell is based off Power, so theoretically it could have the same issues with production and speed scaling, right?

as for World Series... Yomiuri Giants!!! For the Glory!!!

Sideways · « **Reply #14 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 09:26 »

I'm not the MOST computer-savvy person out there, but I don't understand why the Cell chips wouldn't function well in a standard PC environment.

After all, a single chip contains multiple processing cores, or cells, which can perform different tasks, or run the same task in tandem... allowing the processor to properly split itself between graphics processing, physics processing, etc (in gaming systems). So then why would it not be able to run standard OS processes?

Cell's capabilities will allow it to deliver one trillion calculations per second (teraflop) or more of floating-point calculations. It will have the ability to do north of 1 trillion mathematical calculations per second, roughly 100 times more than a single Pentium 4 chip running at 2.5GHz.

So why isn't it practical for this to be in a PC?

Please edumacate me.

ThinkDifferent · « **Reply #15 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 09:33 »

Another advantage of the switch is that PC fanatics might finally stop bitching about the gigahertz gap, even though Mac people know it really doesn't matter. It improves Apple's image in the eyes of laymen, which is always good.

All in all, I'm uneasy, though. I'm afraid Mac zealots' smack talk about PowerPC being better than Pentium (which I've participated in, actually) might come back to haunt us. And if hackers find a way to make OS X run on generic PCs, Apple is done for. Totally done for. Remember, Apple is a hardware company. If people could buy generic PCs and put OS X on them, they definitely would. Apple's sales of Macs would all but disappear and they would become beleaguered again.

I'm not sure what the switch means for emulation purposes. Will VPC run at almost full speed? I've also heard from the gaming community (IMG in particular) that the switch could be bad for Mac gaming because people might simply be able to run PC games on Macs at little performance cost. Anyone know whether that's true?

Since the return of Jobs, Apple has only done one dumb thing (the Cube). Here's hoping that this isn't another one, because if it is, it could have far worse repercussions.

My first post, by the way.

mosfet · « **Reply #16 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 09:47 »

The Cube is one of those things that it depends on who you talk to. A lot of people still run and upgrade cubes these days. I'd like to have another one some time.

My summary on what most of the game developers have said about the switch is that :

The switch is Good for Mac gaming, because it will essentially replace the Mac with a PC. You can just dual boot the Mac into Windows to play games.

The switch is Bad for Mac gaming, because it will essentially replace the Mac with a PC. If you can dual boot into Windows, then why even bother porting games to Mac?

Sideways · « **Reply #17 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 09:49 »

That won't hurt Apple... they don't port anything.

Little Indie companies are typically responsible for those ports.

So yeah, they'll get stung, but this won't hurt Apple at all.

Digs · « **Reply #18 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 09:50 »

I came in here expecting hot Apple on Intel action.

ThinkDifferent · « **Reply #19 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 11:59 »

Somehow Mac-Windows dual-booting doesn't seem likely. Emulation, perhaps (like VPC, only "more native") but not dual-booting like OS 9-OS X dual-booting. Like a lot of people have said, I'm sure Mac and Windows will remain clearly distinct platforms that just happen to run on the same processor. At least, it'll be that way for the end user. I know it'll have more consequences for developers (I being one myself).

Also, of course, with this news Apple's sales will take a hit in the short term because people will hold off on buying until the first Intel Macs come out. Who wants to bet on which will be the first model line to go over?

Also, does anyone know which Intel processors Macs will be using? Pentium? Celeron? Some new thing?

Mnementh · « **Reply #20 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 12:03 »

Quote

After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that

ElRodente · « **Reply #21 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 12:07 »

Quote from: Sideways

So why isn't it practical for this to be in a PC?

Please edumacate me.

sony are being a bit dumb, it's hardly practical for use in a console, with the whole multithreading thing in there, and that's writing for a basic purpose, a game that has a set storyline whatever.. i.e the developers know EXACTLY what any player will do, with a stable modern OS it'd be practically impossible to code for

happybirthdaygelatin · « **Reply #22 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 12:09 »

Disapointed. No wait, relieved at no hot apple on intel action.

Man, bein' pedantic over the world series is tired and old as stand up comedy about the quality of airplane movies/and/or/food and television diners.

Doesn't matter to me what chips are in a computer. A computer is a computer is a duck, or something.

mosfet · « **Reply #23 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 12:30 »

For some of us, the chip matters, but i think for some its brand love/hate.

Intel cludged their dual core technology, AMD did it correctly.
Intel also marketted their P4 for raw Ghz numbers instead of actual performance. Going Intel is sort of a way of Apple saying they're going for low cost at expense of proper technology and quality. Intel did do the Pentium-M correctly, and with SSE2 it could be an even better chip.

Its like going for an Audi versus a VW. Some people might not care, but one will be faster, perform better, and have better quality and reliability.

But like I said, and like you say. for some it matters not, for some it does.
From a purely technical standpoint, I see it as a move down for Apple.

Unless..... unless, Intel creates a new chip, or bases it off the P-M, then I'll be happy. I'm just kind of dissapointed because it feels like a purely "marketting over quality" move to me.

but thats just my opinion.

ThinkDifferent · « **Reply #24 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 12:36 »

OK, so it's likely that someone will soon hack Windows to run on an Intel-based Mac. We'd just better hope to God the reverse (OS X on PCs) doesn't happen, for Apple's sake.

To answer my own, earlier question (which model line will go over first), I'm going with the iMac. It was the first New Age Mac, and has consistently been a big seller.

mosfet · « **Reply #25 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 13:19 »

I thought I saw somewhere that they'd start with the low end and move up to the PowerMac. I can't remember if I saw Mac Mini or iMac would be first.

Mnementh · « **Reply #26 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 13:25 »

For whatever it is worth...

Quote

Finally, it looks like Intel has learned from its mistake and secretly prepping a surprise for the rest of the industry. According to the information we received, Intel is currently working on a desktop, dual-core Dothan microprocessor with SSE3 instruction set that Intel plans to launch sometime in the future. Whether the launch will take place this year or in 2006 is currently unknown.

mosfet · « **Reply #27 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 13:33 »

Sweet! Thats what I've been saying Intel needs to do! They listened to me!

That right there, to use that chip would be the only move that would let Apple save face with me. And Intel as well. Dothan (P-M) is what they should have focussed on instead of selling Mhz.

Addius · « **Reply #28 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 13:40 »

a kickass rumour I've heard before.. hopefully it's true..

Sideways: The reason is that (as I have understood it) the SPEs in the Cell isn't really a full core.. They can calculate a single set of instruktions überquick but only from a limited amount of instruktions, whereas programing a working OS and a good SMP-protocoll would be near impossible. That's what I've been told and my sources could be wrong but it sounds believably to me.

Druid · « **Reply #29 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 14:51 »

Sideways: Cells are Consumer electronics chips. Short pipes ideal for streaming or linear data, but good for little else.

Quote from: ThinkDifferent

Since the return of Jobs, Apple has only done one dumb thing (the Cube). Here's hoping that this isn't another one, because if it is, it could have far worse repercussions.

Jobs doing only one dumb thing, along with what the dumb thing is, is subjective. I count OS X as being as one of his dumb things.

I would have really like to see them go with AMD rather then Intel, at least in their Desktop offerings. Hopefully they will have the foresight to use the PM rather then the P4. Wait, the PM doesn't have x86-64 extensions; will that horrible chip, P4, ever die?

ThinkDifferent · « **Reply #30 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 16:09 »

Quote from: Druid

I count OS X as being as one of his dumb things.

O...kay... I'm going to bow out of that discussion.

Quote from: Druid

Hopefully they will have the foresight to use the PM rather then the P4.

This I can agree heartily with.

Matteh99 · « **Reply #31 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 16:23 »

Quote from: mosfet

I'd love to see a dual-proc dual-core Opteron PowerMac.

The whole Intel thing I'm really sad about. Intel dual core chips are such a technical jerry-rig, not to mention the P4's issues. Apple really should have gone for the AMD line or possibly a modified Pentium-M with SSE2 (which I guess could still happen).

I am not to thrilled about the current p4 chips. They do seem to be getting whooped on by AMD. However, apple isn't switching to today's intel chips they are switching to intel's 2006-2007 chips. The P4 was introduced in late 2000 if I remember right. That was a long time ago. Ok they have done quite a few updates but it is my understanding that it is the same basic design. So in 2006-2007 it wouldn't be out of line to think that intel will have some new and kick ass chip.

Eric

mosfet · « **Reply #32 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 16:26 »

yeah. I posted that one before the nice dual-core SSE3 P-M link.
Add some 64bit and its good to go!

est · « **Reply #33 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 20:58 »

dual-core desktop-targetted dothan processors with SSE3 will fucking rule. after looking at benchmarks of 2ghz P-M's beating 3ghz P4s using less power this is what i have been expecting Intel to do/attempt.

unless there is something else here that i'm unaware of, this should actually push Intel ahead in the power-per-mhz stakes, shouldn't it?

Quote from: also, in http://www.anandtech.com/tradeshows/showdoc.aspx?i=2439'>Anandtech's second Apple->Intel article Anand

Why not AMD? Much of Apple's success is due to marketing and branding, not necessarily technological leadership. That should sound a lot like Intel these days, whose processors essentially lag behind AMD in terms of technology, but outsell AMD by huge margins, thanks to strong marketing and branding. The Intel brand is much stronger than AMD's, and that is the sort of partner that Apple is interested in.

SeanBateman · « **Reply #34 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 21:55 »

You have gots to explain how OSX can possibly be considered a dumb thing

BlueCoatKarma · « **Reply #35 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 22:58 »

So Apple makes hardware...
If people could run OSX on PCs, I think a lot would. In fact, I think there are some large companies (i.e. Dell) who might jump on the chance to ship OSX instead of Windows on their budget machines or workstations (possibly not, there's a lot of industry-specific programs that would have to be written for OSX.) Apple might improve its profit margins if it stops producing all its own hardware and concentrates on shipping more software.

Of course, if Apple ever becomes as popular as Windows it'll have to deal with security just like our pals over at Microsoft.

SeanBateman · « **Reply #36 on:** 07 Jun 2005, 23:39 »

So basically you suggest apple pull a sega? Because I still miss my dreamcast.

Addius · « **Reply #37 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 00:44 »

Apple will from what I remember of OSX never have the same problem as windows has right now, for the simple reason that the user is not given full rights. It's like writing viruses for a OS like OpenBSD.. A hell without comparison.

ThinkDifferent · « **Reply #38 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 03:38 »

I'm about to buy a PowerBook G4 for college. I just hope I don't get fucked over by the transition, if for example most software companies stop making software for the PowerPC before my PB has outlived its usefulness.

That makes me wonder if Apple is already including some kind of backward bridge on new PowerPC Macs (or in Tiger) so apps written for Intel will be able to run in emulation mode on a PowerPC?

Or, I can just hope that software developers continue to offer a choice for a long time, like they did with the 68k-PowerPC transition. For years afterward developers would either offer a choice, or just ship FAT software. What do you think?

mosfet · « **Reply #39 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 04:28 »

Judging from their past 68k-powerPC move, and with other format changes (16 to 32bit, win3.1 to win95, etc), you'll see stuff made for both, and eventually PowerPC will be phased out of development.
Its pretty much the same for most things like this.

I highly doubt they'll emulate x86 Mac on PowerPC.

My guess is that powerbooks may take a bit to be seen in the x86 format, although it is just a guess.

Buying now, you'll have to look at possible future finances, and the having to "eat" a current purchase. Can you wait for 1 year, possibly 2? Can you buy now and afford a new one in two years? Will x86 matter to you, or will a G4 Powerbook last you through college (probably). Would buying a low cost iBook or used Powerbook be a good lower cost fill in while saving up for an x86 Powerbook. and on and on.

ThinkDifferent · « **Reply #40 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 04:50 »

Is it also possible that prices on PPC Macs might drop in the near future to get people to buy the remaining stock?

mosfet · « **Reply #41 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 05:11 »

They'll be even better once the x86 Macs are released. Post release is always the best time to snag previous models. Wait for everyone else to upgrade to new models, and buy their "old" ones.

nihilist · « **Reply #42 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 07:41 »

A is for Apple.
D is for DRM.

Put them together, and what do you get?
Intel!

Sideways · « **Reply #43 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 08:28 »

Quote from: Addius

a kickass rumour I've heard before.. hopefully it's true..

Sideways: The reason is that (as I have understood it) the SPEs in the Cell isn't really a full core.. They can calculate a single set of instruktions überquick but only from a limited amount of instruktions, whereas programing a working OS and a good SMP-protocoll would be near impossible. That's what I've been told and my sources could be wrong but it sounds believably to me.

OH!

Hmm... interesting.

The Cell is stated as being able to handle one trillion calculations per second... but I'm unable to find any information showing how many different sets of instructions it can calculate.

*tries to think of an appropos analogy*

So the Cell Processor is kinda like a rollercoaster? It's REALLY fast, and excels at what it does... but what it does is only one thing.

Whereas typical PCs are more like Vespas (in comparison). Not very quick, but a hell of a lot more versatile.

(that analogy sucked)

nihilist · « **Reply #44 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 08:46 »

The Cell will be awesome for processing specific types of math. It will SUCK at AI, physics, and the like. Nurr.

-sam · « **Reply #45 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 15:51 »

Quote from: BlueCoatKarma

So Apple makes hardware...
If people could run OSX on PCs, I think a lot would. In fact, I think there are some large companies (i.e. Dell) who might jump on the chance to ship OSX instead of Windows on their budget machines or workstations (possibly not, there's a lot of industry-specific programs that would have to be written for OSX.) Apple might improve its profit margins if it stops producing all its own hardware and concentrates on shipping more software.

Wrong, profit margins on hardware far excede the margins for software. Apple is a hardware company and OS X exists to sell hardware.

Quote from: mosfet

My guess is that powerbooks may take a bit to be seen in the x86 format, although it is just a guess.

My guess is that you'll see x86 Powerbooks first. The area where Apple is really lagging technologically is in the laptop market -- x86 based machines are eating G4's lunch. Plus the laptop line still hasn't transitioned to 64 bit yet so Apple can slap one of those dual-core Pentium-M's into a Powerbook not have it look like they're regressing in terms of processor bitness. My bet is that the PowerMac line will be the last to get x86 in '07 when the 64 bit Pentium-M's are scheduled to be released, and Steve is going to show off a shiny new Powerbook x86 at MacWorld SF this January.

Buying a Powerbook now you should be in decent shape for the future. The typical life expectency of an Apple computer is around five years and Apple has historically been pretty good about supporting any machine that falls into that time frame.

-sam

mosfet · « **Reply #46 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 15:57 »

Good call on the Powerbooks. I was going on the idea that the new Macs would wait for 64bit, but I wasn't thinking about a straight transition of the G4 based macs, meaning eMac, Powerbook, and iBook, would come before PowerMac and iMac.

I can definately see that move, so I retract my statement and jump on yours!

Maybe now we'll see that iTablet soon! or even better an Apple two button mouse! of course that last ones just a dream.

-sam · « **Reply #47 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 17:29 »

Quote from: mosfet

Maybe now we'll see that iTablet soon! or even better an Apple two button mouse! of course that last ones just a dream.

Two button mice are overrated, that's what the control key is for.

The above statement reads better if you ignore the fact that I use logitech trackballs with my macs.

-sam

c1utch · « **Reply #48 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 17:54 »

haha two buttons?

try 10 buttons. This is why logitech makes a great mouse

mosfet · « **Reply #49 on:** 08 Jun 2005, 18:19 »

I finally found the Cell article.

The Cell is basically a Power CPU with extra dedicated SIMD units attached.
http://www.research.ibm.com/cell/

I like the lightness of my Razor mouse, but the buttons are badly placed. Its hard to get to the left 2, and hard to get to one of the ones on the right.
Its light weight and 1600dpi is great for games tho! Too bad its Windows only

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Apple on Intel (Read 19285 times)

Mnementh

c1utch

Mnementh

Sideways

Mnementh

-sam

Addius

-sam

mosfet

Sideways

Mnementh

Addius

mosfet

Sideways

ThinkDifferent

mosfet

Sideways

Digs

ThinkDifferent

Mnementh

mosfet

ThinkDifferent

mosfet

Mnementh

mosfet

Addius

Druid

ThinkDifferent

Matteh99

mosfet

SeanBateman

BlueCoatKarma

SeanBateman

Addius

ThinkDifferent

mosfet

ThinkDifferent

mosfet

nihilist

Sideways

nihilist

-sam

mosfet

-sam

c1utch

mosfet