If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
ex-Apple CEO says they should've gone x86 in the 80's
Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating
Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: http://www.computerweekly.com/articl...rch =&nPage=1 or, http://makeashorterlink.com/?P5CC21826 Yousuf Khan |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in
message le.rogers.com... Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: Interesting, maybe another 10 years from now another ex-CEO will say "we should have made it an open system in the late 90's. http://www.computerweekly.com/articl...rch =&nPage=1 or, http://makeashorterlink.com/?P5CC21826 Yousuf Khan |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Beemer Biker" wrote in message
... "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message le.rogers.com... Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: Interesting, maybe another 10 years from now another ex-CEO will say "we should have made it an open system in the late 90's. One can only wonder. In the late 80's, Intel was just introducing their first 32-bit processor, the 80386. But that was still just a scalar, one-instruction per cycle (at best) processor with no cache. At that time, the Mhz speed king was the Alpha, and most people rightly assumed that it would be the first to reach the 1Ghz speed rating. Little did they know that an x86 cloner, AMD, would be the first to 1Ghz; and that the whole x86 market segment would be quickly undergoing revolutionary evolutions (now is that an ironic phrase, "revolutionary evolution"). Within one generation of the 386, they had the processors with FPU and caches onboard (486). Within two generations, they had superscalar processors (Pentium). All the while, all of this upgrade technology was being financed by the incredible volume of the previous generations. Yousuf Khan |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 23:43:25 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote: "Beemer Biker" wrote in message ... "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message le.rogers.com... Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: Interesting, maybe another 10 years from now another ex-CEO will say "we should have made it an open system in the late 90's. One can only wonder. In the late 80's, Intel was just introducing their first 32-bit processor, the 80386. But that was still just a scalar, one-instruction per cycle (at best) processor with no cache. At that time, the Mhz speed king was the Alpha, I think you've got your dates off by a bit there. The 386 was released in 1985, while the Alpha didn't come out until 1992 as best as I can tell (though historical info about the Alpha has become a bit tough to come by). By the time the Alpha made it to market, the 486 was already a pretty mature design and the Pentium was just around the corner. Of course, in the mid-80s, RISC was definitely the design of the future, or so it would seem. The first commercial RISC chip was probably a MIPS chip, circa '86, though I'm sure that there are many other chips out there that claim to be the "first RISC chip" in one way or another. and most people rightly assumed that it would be the first to reach the 1Ghz speed rating. If it hadn't been for mass bungling and mismanagement at Digital, along with some pretty serious problems when it came to actually MAKING the processors instead of just designing them, Alpha would have been the first to reach 1GHz. Little did they know that an x86 cloner, AMD, would be the first to 1Ghz; and that the whole x86 market segment would be quickly undergoing revolutionary evolutions (now is that an ironic phrase, "revolutionary evolution"). Within one generation of the 386, they had the processors with FPU and caches onboard (486). Within two generations, they had superscalar processors (Pentium). All the while, all of this upgrade technology was being financed by the incredible volume of the previous generations. Pretty much. It's tough for companies to compete against x86 when they have trouble reaching 1% of Intel's volume. AMD gets by with about 1/5th of Intel's volume, and they haven't exactly done well financially for some time now. Just think of how tough it has to be for companies like Sun who only manage to sell something on the order of 1 chip for every 10,000 that Intel sells. Even with dramatically higher costs (and therefore profit) per chip it becomes REAL tough to finance the development. ------------- Tony Hill hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Apple would've done well to go into partnership with Acorn over the ARM CPU
platform, but I doubt Acorn would've liked that very much. Acorn were like that. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley BRBR
Sculley? ROTFLMAO!!! -- Dr. Nuketopia Sorry, no e-Mail. Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 09 Oct 2003 18:55:34 GMT, "Yousuf Khan"
wrote: Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: Sculley should have stayed at Pepsi!!:-) Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article
ogers.com, "Yousuf Khan" wrote: Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: All that would have been needed to make the transition to x86 practical would have been an x86 processor that was a few times faster than any current or near-term 68K processor, so it could emulate the 68K processor with adequate speed. Otherwise, all existing Mac apps would have run uselessly slowly on the x86 Macs. Scully is famous for bad decisions, both business and technical. This would be another one. No one counted on AMD forcing Intel to make faster, cheaper processors 6 or 8 years down the road, not even Intel or AMD. Apple may still switch to x86. Without IBM's rescue, Apple might have already started. The Mac market isn't large enough to support processor development, and Apple killed off any other market for desktop PPC. It no longer matters, as all the things that made Macs worth using have been destroyed by the NeXTies, at the same time that MS has made Windows much better and nicer. It takes a real diehard to put up with throbbing buttons, drawers, and the *nix command line, to name a few. __________________________________________________ __________________ TonyN.:' ' |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The CPU was irrelevent. They choose an open CPU (PPC), but put it in a closed
system. Apple has always used low cost CPUs in their entry level system. The problem prior to the iMac was the dozens of system designs. Even after they went with open interfaces and just four systems, they still cost more than comparable PCs. If Apple releases OSX for industry standard PCs, they will lose most of their hardware revenues. They may make it up if the can sell OSX for the price of Win 2k/XP Pro. They could get 10% market share this way. "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message le.rogers.com... | Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating | Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep | against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on | the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: | | | http://makeashorterlink.com/?P5CC21826 | |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... "Beemer Biker" wrote in message ... "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message le.rogers.com... Apple's ex-CEO John Sculley said that they were evaluating Intel-architecture in the late 80's, and decided that it couldn't keep against RISC processors, so they went the RISC route. They didn't count on the evolutionary process eventually putting x86 on a par with RISC: Interesting, maybe another 10 years from now another ex-CEO will say "we should have made it an open system in the late 90's. One can only wonder. In the late 80's, Intel was just introducing their first 32-bit processor, the 80386. But that was still just a scalar, one-instruction per cycle (at best) processor with no cache. At that time, the Mhz speed king was the Alpha, and most people rightly assumed that it would be the first to reach the 1Ghz speed rating. Little did they know that an x86 cloner, AMD, would be the first to 1Ghz; and that the whole x86 market segment would be quickly undergoing revolutionary evolutions (now is that an ironic phrase, "revolutionary evolution"). Within one generation of the 386, they had the processors with FPU and caches onboard (486). Within two generations, they had superscalar processors (Pentium). All the while, all of this upgrade technology was being financed by the incredible volume of the previous generations. Almost forgot that the AMD processor usurped the Pentium by a couple of days with an announced product that didn't even ship for weeks later. That's history for you. I'm not sure moving to the Intel platform would have made them a more profitable company. If Sun moved all of it's hardware to PC/AMD64, would it make more money? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Apple LCD monitor with 6800 series problems- Won't boot via DVI only & no text mode support for BIOS screens | Nick Wild | Nvidia Videocards | 3 | September 1st 04 05:47 AM |
Apple Cinema Display and BFG 6800 - minor problem | Marton Anka | Nvidia Videocards | 6 | August 28th 04 11:00 PM |
Finding out about Apple Mac | Samia | Dell Computers | 1 | April 14th 04 01:31 PM |
Compatible or Original toner cartridge for Apple Laserwriter 8500? | Michael | Printers | 5 | January 2nd 04 02:50 PM |
Compatible or Original toner cartridge for Apple Laserwriter8500? | Michael | Printers | 0 | December 31st 03 12:14 AM |