iPhone finally here, the Western Civilization is saved

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by Dakota rube

So, anyone hear Apple introduced a new cell phone?

No way!

 

[ratboycom]

somehow I think this comic sums up what goes on in the average brainwashed Apple user's head (btw this is not a direct attack on you Brian, Its merely a joke that TS's post inspired me to post)

 

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by ratboycom

somehow I think this comic sums up what goes on in the average brainwashed Apple user's head (btw this is not a direct attack on you Brian, Its merely a joke that TS's post inspired me to post)

 

[Babar]

Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim

Remember that The G5 Apple tower was supposed to be the best graphics and media computer available to the consumer when it came out, It was supposed to blow people away with its speed and performance, but was consistantly outperformed by both cheaper AMD and Intel based computers, including those from Dell and HP in every independant test done in the months just after its release. The main reason the switch from PowerPC to Intel took place is simply that Intel is a better platform. Faster, cheaper, cooler, more efficient. Anyone who refutes this is fooling themselves. So why then have people been trying to beat us over the head with how much better and higher quality Apple's hardware has been than say... Dell and HP for the past 10+ years? Now Apple uses the same hardware as Dell and HP. Amazing how the hype machine works isn't it? Congratulations all you lifelong Apple fans out there, the hype machine has left you without a leg to stand on...

If IBM could actually deliver what they promised to Apple, i.e. a 3 GHZ G5 by the spring of 2004 and a low powered laptop version within the same timeframe, there'd be no reason for Apple to switch platforms. Since they couldn't even get to 2.5 GHZ by the end of 2005 without using intricate water cooling, it'd be madness of Apple not to switch to a vendor that treats them right. They did the same thing when Motorola didn't deliver a powerful enough solution before the G5.

If the PowerPC platform is as crappy as you say, then why would it be used by both Sony and Microsoft for their next-gen consoles? For certain uses it is indeed still superior to whatever Intel and AMD can offer.

 

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by Babar

If IBM could actually deliver what they promised to Apple, i.e. a 3 GHZ G5 by the spring of 2004 and a low powered laptop version within the same timeframe, there'd be no reason for Apple to switch platforms. Since they couldn't even get to 2.5 GHZ by the end of 2005 without using intricate water cooling, it'd be madness of Apple not to switch to a vendor that treats them right. They did the same thing when Motorola didn't deliver a powerful enough solution before the G5. If the PowerPC platform is as crappy as you say, then why would it be used by both Sony and Microsoft for their next-gen consoles? For certain uses it is indeed still superior to whatever Intel and AMD can offer.
I think the problem is that today's PPC architectures are moving in a different direction from what Apple and many other desktop personal computer manufacturers would like. Consider the whole Levono deal..,. Plus Apple never seemed to like the idea of not being in control, and who could possibly force IBM to do something? Certainly not a comparative pipsqueak like Apple. Hell, IBM has repeatedly snubbed M$ without a second thought, and seems to be taking special glee in hammering SCO to a pulp. When you think about it, they could have at any moment done a hostile takeover of SCO but instead they took it to heart and they are crushing them in court so that they then also have precedent in Linux/*nix court cases. Oh and btw, modern x86 architectures are actually RISC internally like PPC has been - while especially complex this way, they process internally that way instead of CISC, which is the legacy architecture Intel designed back in the stone ages. Motorola (and partners) on the other hand decided with PPC to drop completely any association with the MC68* architecture; the MIPS design/standards are basically what modern PPC lines were based on, iirc. (can you tell that CPU architecture was my favourite C.Eng subject in uni?

)

 

[matadorpoeta]

Originally Posted by ratboycom

i want that shirt.

i use a mac becuase i don't know squat about computers and have no desire to learn. does that make me a bad person?

 

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by matadorpoeta

i want that shirt.

i use a mac becuase i don't know squat about computers and have no desire to learn. does that make me a bad person?

Burn, heretic, BUUUUUURN!

 

[A Y]

Much of PPC actually came from IBM in the 60s. Actually anything significant computer architecture-related probably came from IBM in the 60s anyway. As for MIPS ... let's just say that every industry has their Armani.

Distinction between RISC and CISC is actually artificial and mostly meaningless --- it's more of a continuum of design choices than two polar opposites.

For embedded applications, like game consoles, PPCs are valuable because they can be synthesized on custom ASICs with whatever other silicon you want. With x86s, you can only buy what you get off the shelf from Intel or AMD. That's OK for desktop computers, but sometimes not acceptable for applications where cost, power, and form factor are more important. The Xbox 360's 3-core CPU is a great example of this, where IBM could find the right sweet spot for Microsoft for the amount of computational power they wanted for the costs they had.

--Andre

 

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

Much of PPC actually came from IBM in the 60s. Actually anything significant computer architecture-related probably came from IBM in the 60s anyway. As for MIPS ... let's just say that every industry has their Armani. Distinction between RISC and CISC is actually artificial and mostly meaningless --- it's more of a continuum of design choices than two polar opposites. For embedded applications, like game consoles, PPCs are valuable because they can be synthesized on custom ASICs with whatever other silicon you want. With x86s, you can only buy what you get off the shelf from Intel or AMD. That's OK for desktop computers, but sometimes not acceptable for applications where cost, power, and form factor are more important. The Xbox 360's 3-core CPU is a great example of this, where IBM could find the right sweet spot for Microsoft for the amount of computational power they wanted for the costs they had. --Andre
ARmani, lol Well, the the CISC vs RISC, I see where you are coming from but I don't mean in necessarily in a length of words, commands et.c. alone but the overall architecture. Yes they are not clearly defined but if you go back a few years when the lines were much clearer from an architectural perspective, you can see my point. P.s. does anyone else who has tried it hate assembly/mc programming on the 68k CPUs? As much as I love them, I absolutely HATED having to write code for mc68* sbcs. What a nightmare. As for the custom asics, yeah you are right that for the x86 is would be a case where you'd need to be a complete masochist to commission or even want to do an integrated design containing that nightmare of an architecture, assuming it would be even feasible cost-wise. Anyway, it is not like you can just go and license the design from Intel. Hell, that is why you still find Z80s in devices nowadays, and ARM does (did?) brisk business for low power devices such as cellphones. edit: I just had to check on ARM. They are still around

http://www.arm.com/ Anyone remember the Acorn Archimedes? 4MIPS from 4 MHz. Almost same clockspeed as an CPC464 but massively more "powerful". Ah those were the days...

 

[A Y]

I meant the overall architecture, too. For example, MIPS's mandate of a branch delay slot in their instruction set really messes them up when they try to do superscaler or multiple issue later on. It may have been great when they had the classic 5-stage pipeline, but pretty shortsighted today. VAX's attempt to fill every nook and cranny in their instruction set encoding lead to their very complicated implementation and backwards compatibility headaches later on. I guess my point is that it's all related, and some design choices force certain things on the rest of the architecture. It's not as clearcut as a choice of RISC vs. CISC.

I've done assembly on many CPUs, including 68k. It's actually not too bad to program in. The bad ones are the superscalar or semi-VLIW ones that force you to hand-schedule instructions, like certain DSPs.

ARM is definitely around, and is one of the most popular 32-bit embedded CPUs. They're basically everywhere: most MP3 players, color inkjets, cellphones, hard drives, and basically places where battery life and decent computational power is required. They're slowly replacing the 8/16-bit micros, like the Z80, on the low end, and they've been trying to move up the high-end to displace MIPS and PowerPC. That's a market that's mostly custom ASICs: your ARM (or ARMs) and maybe a DSP or something else on your own chip.

I remember the Acorn (and I owned an Amiga as well as a BeBox), and the original ARM designers came from the 6502 team. ARM is another tough one to classify as RISC or CISC.

There's so little variety in desktop computers today that I don't blame people for being a bit fanatical about Apple, since it is a valid alternative to the mainstream.

--Andre

 

[Tokyo Slim]

Methinks you guys are trying to shut me up by out-nerding me.

 

[skalogre]

Originally Posted by Andre Yew

I meant the overall architecture, too. For example, MIPS's mandate of a branch delay slot in their instruction set really messes them up when they try to do superscaler or multiple issue later on. It may have been great when they had the classic 5-stage pipeline, but pretty shortsighted today. VAX's attempt to fill every nook and cranny in their instruction set encoding lead to their very complicated implementation and backwards compatibility headaches later on. I guess my point is that it's all related, and some design choices force certain things on the rest of the architecture. It's not as clearcut as a choice of RISC vs. CISC.

I've done assembly on many CPUs, including 68k. It's actually not too bad to program in. The bad ones are the superscalar or semi-VLIW ones that force you to hand-schedule instructions, like certain DSPs.

ARM is definitely around, and is one of the most popular 32-bit embedded CPUs. They're basically everywhere: most MP3 players, color inkjets, cellphones, hard drives, and basically places where battery life and decent computational power is required. They're slowly replacing the 8/16-bit micros, like the Z80, on the low end, and they've been trying to move up the high-end to displace MIPS and PowerPC. That's a market that's mostly custom ASICs: your ARM (or ARMs) and maybe a DSP or something else on your own chip.

I remember the Acorn (and I owned an Amiga as well as a BeBox), and the original ARM designers came from the 6502 team. ARM is another tough one to classify as RISC or CISC.

There's so little variety in desktop computers today that I don't blame people for being a bit fanatical about Apple, since it is a valid alternative to the mainstream.

--Andre

You had a BeBox? Wow, m@d str33t cr3d lolzz!1111!!!!

I think I have somewhere the package of the first version of BeOS somewhere. And funnily enough, I just pulled the HD out of my Amiga 1200 today to make a new hardfile for WinUAE.

Oh and if 68k assembly is not too bad for you, you are much braver than I am

I did not get to mess around with the newer architectures as I left behind my h/w days leaving university (unfortunately). But I remember what a mess it was trying to work out the instruction timing with the pipelines on paper. Only did some limited learning on superscalar et.c. as this was maybe 8 or so years ago. Most curricula did not have that much info on those architectures at that point.

 

[SGladwell]

If I may take this thread back from computer stuff I've never heard of - I'm a Mac guy, which means I like to do things on my computer rather than bench-race it - to the iPhone I'll have to see how it works in person before plonking down the money for it. (That, and I'd rather be on T-Mobile or Verizon than Cingular.) My main objection to it is the touch keyboard. Maybe it will work well, but for once I'm a little skeptical. I think if they're doing away with the keyboard they need to add a modernized version of the old Newton's handwriting recognition software, which is in some respects still better than the latest Palm Graffiti. Also, I'm not sure the "flick" method of navigating songs is going to be as user-friendly as a Click Wheel.

I think that unlike in computers or MP3 players, where Apple's by far the only worthy game in town, the phone market actually has competitiors who aren't worthless automotrons. I'm extremely impressed with both the Blackberry Pearl (except for the voice quality, I loved my old 7100t and hate my current Razr) and the new Nokia smartphone (E62 or something like that). And, to a lesser extent, the Treo 700p.

PS: I actually agree with TS, et al., about Apple mice. I've never liked any them, and I wish on the MacBook (Pro) they would just expand the touchpad and give it "zones" for clicking just like they have zones for scrolling. (Two buttons would be seen as a retreat, so let them save face and come up with something better than control-click.) I use Macally trackballs in my home and office. They'd suck for graphics work, but they're the most efficient thing I've found for what I do.

 

[Babar]

Originally Posted by SGladwell

PS: I actually agree with TS, et al., about Apple mice. I've never liked any them, and I wish on the MacBook (Pro) they would just expand the touchpad and give it "zones" for clicking just like they have zones for scrolling. (Two buttons would be seen as a retreat, so let them save face and come up with something better than control-click.) I use Macally trackballs in my home and office. They'd suck for graphics work, but they're the most efficient thing I've found for what I do.

When you place two fingers on trackpad and click the button you'll get the secondary click.

 

[mussel]

Settlement Lets Apple Use "˜iPhone'

February 22, 2007
By BRAD STONE
SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 21 "” Apple and Cisco Systems have decided that a name is not worth fighting over.

On Wednesday, the companies settled their dispute over the iPhone trademark. Six weeks ago, Cisco filed a lawsuit in federal court in San Francisco over Apple's planned use of the name for its much anticipated multimedia device, which combines the features of a mobile phone, an iPod and a BlackBerry.

Cisco claimed that it had owned the trademark since 2000 and was using it for a line of Internet-connected phones.

Wednesday night, in a short, ambiguously worded statement, the companies said they would dismiss all legal action against each other regarding the trademark and that Apple could use the name for its device, which it plans to start selling in June.

In addition, the companies said they would explore ways to make their identically named iPhone products work together "in the areas of security and consumer and enterprise communication."

Representatives for Apple and Cisco said other terms of the deal would remain confidential. It is not known if Apple made a cash payment to Cisco, but intellectual property lawyers say some sort of payment is typical in these cases. It is also unclear whether Cisco had sold Apple the name iPhone outright and had then secured permission to use it itself.

But the deal appears to give a partial victory to both sides. Apple can begin selling its phone with the name that its strong-willed chief executive, Steven P. Jobs, seemed to prefer.

Cisco can also continue to use the name, and with the promise of interoperability, it might have some of the hype and magic surrounding Apple's products rub off on its own less prominent offerings.

Hostilities broke out between the two companies last month, when Mr. Jobs announced the music phone at the annual Macworld convention in San Francisco.

Cisco, the networking company based in San Jose, Calif., was using the name to sell phones that can plug into a PC or connect with a wireless hot spot and make free calls over the Internet.

The two companies negotiated intensely over the trademark in early January. Executives had planned to make announcements concurrently at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and at Macworld, proclaiming the links between their iPhone products.

After talks broke down and Mr. Jobs announced his iPhone anyway, Cisco filed a lawsuit, saying that Apple's use of the iPhone name constituted a "willful and malicious" violation of Cisco's intellectual property. In response, Apple called the lawsuit "silly" and noted publicly that several companies besides Cisco were using the iPhone name.

Cisco's lawsuit described covert Apple attempts to obtain the rights to the iPhone name. In September 2006, a corporation calling itself Ocean Telecom Services filed an application for the trademark based on earlier filings in Trinidad and Tobago. In its complaint, Cisco asserted that Apple was behind the efforts.

But while they flung legal accusations at each other, both companies faced significant pressure to settle. Apple's iPhone will be released in June and will be available to customers of the AT&T wireless network, which was formerly known as Cingular Wireless. If Apple had failed to settle with Cisco and subsequently lost the battle in court, it could have been liable for financial penalties for each unit that it sold.

But Cisco also faced a strong incentive to reach a deal.

"Cisco had to provide access to the trademark to Apple if it wanted to achieve the highest value for the name. There was no potential second buyer who would have equaled Apple's desire for the iPhone mark," said Alan Fisch, an intellectual-property lawyer at Kaye Scholer in Washington.

He added that Cisco also faced the reality that consumers associated the name more with Apple.

"The iPhone name has been informally synonymous with an anticipated Apple phone for years prior to the product's formal announcement," he said.