Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

AceVentura101 · Oct 12, 2005, 09:06 AM

Hi, at the moment I own an Intel P4 2.6Ghz system about 4 Yrs old.
i'm switching to an AMD 64bit Athlon Dual Core for the simple reason AMD is a more cheaper, FASTER and Cooler running CPU and its very reliable!! TOO BAD that Apple is switching to Intel because they would get much more performance out of AMD, i mean AMD is the only PC based processor that intergrates 64BIT into a Laptop!!! and they brought out 64BIT at least 1-2Yrs B4 intel..

Now wheres the logic. C'mon Apple try AMD, Ditch Intel.. The only reason Intel has the main advantage over AMD is becase the company gave DELL, HP, SONY and TOSHIBA Thousands of dollars just to not sell Laptops and PC's with an AMD processor in them..

..But apparently AMD is stepping up 2 intel and takin' em 2 court. Good on ya AMD
..........................
AMD benchmark-
200MB Movie file Decoded in..
___________________________

AMD 4800+
Dual Core------------- 38.2 secs
___________________________

Intel Pentium
4 Dual860---------42.1 secs
___________________________

dwd3885 · Oct 12, 2005, 09:10 AM

yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. amd is the best, but in terms of marketing and market share, intel is the way to go. when was the last time you saw an AMD commercial? How bout NEVER!

snaggs · Oct 12, 2005, 09:28 AM

Intels offerings for Apple will be unique and won't be limitied by the Microsoft timetable. Infact, IMHO, intel will use Apple as their "captive audience" for their latest technologies, without having to worry whether Microsoft will support their direction.

Daniel.

havocidal · Oct 12, 2005, 09:35 AM

u must remember that the reason why they picked intel are based on many factors... although i'm not a businessman of any kind... but you should know that it takes 2 hands to clap... even if apple wanted to use amd chips... there is a possiblity that amd didn't want to... of course there may be other factors which have been mentioned in many posts...

u must know that just because you like amd... it doesn't have to mean that it will be amd...

gururafiki · Oct 12, 2005, 11:45 AM

Intel has lower power chips than AMD, therefore Intel excels in mobile technology, which is exactly where the computer industry is headed. So Apple probably made a wise choice by choosing Intel if their main goal is to bust out superior laptops again.

P · Oct 12, 2005, 04:26 PM

Apple joined with Intel because of the advertising money and because of delivery security. AMD has 2 plants, one of which is quite new. Intel has... what? 30 something, I think. It's unlikely that Intel will have problem keeping up with demand if they have a very popular new CPU - they'll just redirect production capacity that is currently making flash memory or something. No, not overnight, but they can do that - and after a bad experience with IBM (Powerbook G5, anyone?) and a horrible one with Motorola (one six six megahertz databus, when the competition is doing at least 4 times on their portable CPUs) Apple wants stability in their suppliers. Intel is that - AMD isn't.

Abbas · Oct 12, 2005, 06:04 PM

Keep in mind that Apple has access to Roadmaps for the next few quarters. I'm sure that Intel's new CPU lanching mid next year, will be better than AMD and Apple proably saw that. While AMD is certainly doing awesome now (I have an X2 setup), I think Intel will be on top again mid of next year.

-Abbas

rambo47 · Oct 12, 2005, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by Abbas

Keep in mind that Apple has access to Roadmaps for the next few quarters. I'm sure that Intel's new CPU lanching mid next year, will be better than AMD and Apple proably saw that. While AMD is certainly doing awesome now (I have an X2 setup), I think Intel will be on top again mid of next year.

-Abbas

Yup, it's all about the future. AMD might have leap-frogged Intel in the short term, but I really can't fault Apple for going with the 800 lb. gorilla for the next generation of devices.

mduell · 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by AceVentura101

Hi, at the moment I own an Intel P4 2.6Ghz system about 4 Yrs old.
i'm switching to an AMD 64bit Athlon Dual Core for the simple reason AMD is a more cheaper, FASTER and Cooler running CPU and its very reliable!! TOO BAD that Apple is switching to Intel because they would get much more performance out of AMD, i mean AMD is the only PC based processor that intergrates 64BIT into a Laptop!!! and they brought out 64BIT at least 1-2Yrs B4 intel..

What does 64-bit do for you?
Does it make your apps faster? Not really; maybe 10% here and there, but they can be slower too.
Let you use more memory? Not really; few (if any) laptops even support 4GB today.
Oh I know, the "biggar numbar!!!" theory.

Apple went with Intel instead of AMD for the mobile chips. Over half of the PC sales (and an even greater portion of the revenue) these days are from laptops. I'd guess Apple went to both of them, and Intel has the better mobile product (Sonoma/Dothan) and roadmap (Napa/Yonah&Conroe).

AMD benchmark-
200MB Movie file Decoded in..

AMD 4800+
Dual Core------------- 38.2 secs

Intel Pentium
4 Dual860---------42.1 secs

I think you mean Pentium D 840, not Pentium 4 860 (since the latter doesn't exist).
But anyway, wow, 9% better performance for the AMD chip that costs 63% more than the Pentium!

ccrunner84 · Oct 12, 2005, 08:41 PM

I would only think that it was AMD's lack of supplying the demand. Also I believe that AMD helped IBM / Apple with the G5 using its Hypertransport etc so there might be some bad blood aswell?

mduell · Oct 12, 2005, 08:45 PM

Originally Posted by ccrunner84

I would only think that it was AMD's lack of supplying the demand. Also I believe that AMD helped IBM / Apple with the G5 using its Hypertransport etc so there might be some bad blood aswell?

HyperTransport has little (nothing?) to do with the reason why Apple is leaving PowerPC/PPC970; AMD has even improved HyperTransport beyond the version Apple is using.

AceVentura101 · Oct 12, 2005, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by P

Apple joined with Intel because of the advertising money and because of delivery security. AMD has 2 plants, one of which is quite new. Intel has... what? 30 something, I think. It's unlikely that Intel will have problem keeping up with demand if they have a very popular new CPU - they'll just redirect production capacity that is currently making flash memory or something. No, not overnight, but they can do that - and after a bad experience with IBM (Powerbook G5, anyone?) and a horrible one with Motorola (one six six megahertz databus, when the competition is doing at least 4 times on their portable CPUs) Apple wants stability in their suppliers. Intel is that - AMD isn't.

I know what you mean, AMD hasnt been very eager taking Intel to court or even Complaining so maybe intel's better B'cause of their POWER, Business wise :-D

The only real reason ive chosen an AMD chip over my dear intel is that i need the power that the AMD pumps out and at the moment 4 what i need AMD is on top

That might change tho, Seaning Intel will B business partners with the best computer Fabricators around!!

AceVentura101 · Oct 12, 2005, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

What does 64-bit do for you?
Does it make your apps faster? Not really; maybe 10% here and there, but they can be slower too.
Let you use more memory? Not really; few (if any) laptops even support 4GB today.
Oh I know, the "biggar numbar!!!" theory.

Apple went with Intel instead of AMD for the mobile chips. Over half of the PC sales (and an even greater portion of the revenue) these days are from laptops. I'd guess Apple went to both of them, and Intel has the better mobile product (Sonoma/Dothan) and roadmap (Napa/Yonah&Conroe).

I think you mean Pentium D 840, not Pentium 4 860 (since the latter doesn't exist).
But anyway, wow, 9% better performance for the AMD chip that costs 63% more Pentium!

You Knew What i ment, I got the benchmark from my Book PC World

Helmling · Oct 12, 2005, 09:59 PM

You're all wrong.

The reason Apple picked Intel has nothing to do with IBM keeping up in the chipspeed race. It has nothing to do with speed at all.

Jobs has a plan and you saw phase one of it come out of the gate today.

Intel has worked up a built-in security system for downloading feature films for their chips. This was a major concern for Jobs and the future of movies and computers.

Picture it: You open up your Mac, go to iFlix and buy a movie for $9.95. It downloads to your computer and you then update your video-capable iPod so that you can then take that movie anywhere and plug in your AV cable to watch it...but you can't copy it anywhere because of the technology that Apple and Intel have worked together on to keep the data locked up.

Jobs wants to do for the film industry what he has done for music.

It's a good plan.

mduell · Oct 12, 2005, 10:22 PM

Originally Posted by Helmling

You're all wrong.

The reason Apple picked Intel has nothing to do with IBM keeping up in the chipspeed race. It has nothing to do with speed at all.

Jobs has a plan and you saw phase one of it come out of the gate today.

Intel has worked up a built-in security system for downloading feature films for their chips. This was a major concern for Jobs and the future of movies and computers.

Picture it: You open up your Mac, go to iFlix and buy a movie for $9.95. It downloads to your computer and you then update your video-capable iPod so that you can then take that movie anywhere and plug in your AV cable to watch it...but you can't copy it anywhere because of the technology that Apple and Intel have worked together on to keep the data locked up.

Jobs wants to do for the film industry what he has done for music.

It's a good plan.

IBM is in on Trusted (or Treacherous) Computing too, and Apple could put a TPM module in a PowerPC based system.

If they charge $9.99 for a movie, I hope it's better than this 320x240 #@$% they're pushing for music videos and TV. At least 720x480, even if they can't display all of the pixels when it's played on an iPod.

Zubir · Oct 13, 2005, 12:35 AM

Four words: Hardware Digtal Rights Management.

swichd · Oct 13, 2005, 12:47 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

IBM is in on Trusted (or Treacherous) Computing too, and Apple could put a TPM module in a PowerPC based system.

If they charge $9.99 for a movie, I hope it's better than this 320x240 #@$% they're pushing for music videos and TV. At least 720x480, even if they can't display all of the pixels when it's played on an iPod.

First off, what ever happened to the user controlling what his/her computer would play? All this DRM bulls*** is really annoying me. At least when it's on the software I can get rid of it. Plus 10 bucks for a movie is worthless when I can get the high quality dvd loaded with special features for not much more. Just my $.02.

Worth a visit

mduell · Oct 13, 2005, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by Zubir

Four words: Hardware Digtal Rights Management.

Four? Try one: LaGrande

ammonkc · Oct 26, 2005, 06:05 PM

Apple went with Intel for many (very good) reasons. AMD might have a performance edge right now. but intel's future road mad is what Apple was interested in. AMD got the headstart on dual core but their prices are still double that of the intel dual-core line. even the high-end intel is cheaper than the AMD. and the the Merom architecture promises to save power and run cooler. eventually they expect to have moble computers running for 10+ hrs on the merom chip architecture. intel has the capacity to keep up with the demand for all of Apple's product lines. And finally, something that hasn't beed discusses too much is intel's backing of the 802.16 (WiMAX) standard. intel is planning on emmbedding WiMAX into the their processors.
"Intel is expected to be a major driver towards price reduction. Taken at face value, Intel claims to be able to drive the price per user to zero over the next 3-4 years. That is due to embedding WiMAX into the system processors and board architectures for laptop, PDA and other devices. -- Wikipedia ".
I'm sure Apple would not make a decision like this switch without exhausting every feasible option. I don't think that its our place to question Steve's judgement. Steve clearly made the best decision for Apple.

kw14 · Oct 26, 2005, 06:34 PM

I think the connection of Intel switch to video DRM is speculative at this point. The more likely reason seems to be the mobile chip roadmap. Comparing to the latest crop of laptops, I still feel my two yrs old Powerbook is still playing in the same ball park.

Person Man · Oct 26, 2005, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Zubir

Four words: Hardware Digtal Rights Management.

One word: no.

Moon Potato · 12:57 AM

Aside from the aggressive mobile chip roadmap and hardware DRM, Intel gives steep discounts to customers that go Intel-only. That's why you can't get a Dell with an AMD chip in it.

I'm not too crazy about the idea of relying on a single chip provider, but the situation might change if AMD's lawsuit against Intel brings an end to the Intel-only volume discounts.

OreoCookie · Oct 30, 2005, 09:50 AM

Actually I think Apple's motivation is to expand the user base. There are tons of people who love Apple's design, but are too afraid to buy something `incompatible'. With the new machines, they can run Windows if they choose to do so.

As to the question AMD vs. Intel, AMD has a very good lineup right now, but Intel seems to have a better low-power road map. The Turion never made big inroads into the Notebook industry, yes, there are a few, but the majority of notebooks runs on Pentium Ms/Celeron Ms.

If Jobs wanted to, he could have low-power PowerPC chips as well, but I think he's thinking of releasing OS X as a competitor to Windows, i. e. to allow all people to install it. Similar to the iPod effect, I would say. He waits and sees how popular OS X becomes (with hackers). That's how it started with the iPod, too.

Ilgaz · Oct 30, 2005, 01:01 PM

In 2003 I decided to give up "most popular CPU" and while owning a P4 1800, I bought G5 1600.

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

I gave up Intel and the brand I like won't change that decision. They better continue to produce G5 machines in 2006 (got no money problem, can buy workstations) or I am out of Apple.

BTW to replies like "yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. ", I am a customer, I pay the money and I choose the brand including the CPU.

Ilgaz · Oct 30, 2005, 01:01 PM

In 2003 I decided to give up "most popular CPU" and while owning a P4 1800, I bought G5 1600.

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

I gave up Intel and the brand I like won't change that decision. They better continue to produce G5 machines in 2006 (got no money problem, can buy workstations) or I am out of Apple.

BTW to replies like "yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. ", I am a customer, I pay the money and I choose the brand including the CPU.

Ilgaz · Oct 30, 2005, 01:02 PM

In 2003 I decided to give up "most popular CPU" and while owning a P4 1800, I bought G5 1600.

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

I gave up Intel and the brand I like won't change that decision. They better continue to produce G5 machines in 2006 (got no money problem, can buy workstations) or I am out of Apple.

BTW to replies like "yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. ", I am a customer, I pay the money and I choose the brand including the CPU.

Ilgaz · Oct 30, 2005, 01:02 PM

In 2003 I decided to give up "most popular CPU" and while owning a P4 1800, I bought G5 1600.

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

I gave up Intel and the brand I like won't change that decision. They better continue to produce G5 machines in 2006 (got no money problem, can buy workstations) or I am out of Apple.

BTW to replies like "yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. ", I am a customer, I pay the money and I choose the brand including the CPU.

Ilgaz · Oct 30, 2005, 01:04 PM

In 2003 I decided to give up "most popular CPU" and while owning a P4 1800, I bought G5 1600.

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

I gave up Intel and the brand I like won't change that decision. They better continue to produce G5 machines in 2006 (got no money problem, can buy workstations) or I am out of Apple.

BTW to replies like "yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. ", I am a customer, I pay the money and I choose the brand including the CPU.

mduell · Oct 30, 2005, 06:36 PM

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

In 2003 I decided to give up "most popular CPU" and while owning a P4 1800, I bought G5 1600.

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

I gave up Intel and the brand I like won't change that decision. They better continue to produce G5 machines in 2006 (got no money problem, can buy workstations) or I am out of Apple.

BTW to replies like "yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. ", I am a customer, I pay the money and I choose the brand including the CPU.

What are you going to buy instead of OSX on x86?
AIX or Linux on POWER? Solaris or Linux on Sparc?

Lateralus · Oct 30, 2005, 06:42 PM

Mark, please stop reporting posts. We're in the middle of a software upgrade and there are problems forum-wide. We're aware of them and trying to fix them.

Catfish_Man · Oct 30, 2005, 10:23 PM

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

Thankfully Apple knows everyone hates the BIOS

I'll be surprised (and annoyed) if they end up using it.

Tick · Oct 31, 2005, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

In 2003 I decided to give up "most popular CPU" and while owning a P4 1800, I bought G5 1600.

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

I gave up Intel and the brand I like won't change that decision. They better continue to produce G5 machines in 2006 (got no money problem, can buy workstations) or I am out of Apple.

BTW to replies like "yeah i'm sure apple will change because of you. ", I am a customer, I pay the money and I choose the brand including the CPU.

What are you going to do when they eventually transition everything to x86 by 2010?

Spliffdaddy · Oct 31, 2005, 11:13 PM

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

Thankfully Apple knows everyone hates the BIOS

I'll be surprised (and annoyed) if they end up using it.

All computers have a BIOS (binary input/output system). Apple calls their BIOS the 'firmware'.

P · Nov 1, 2005, 11:46 AM

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

All computers have a BIOS (binary input/output system). Apple calls their BIOS the 'firmware'.

Only in the sense that every computer has a DOS (disk operating system). My Mac has a disk and it's got an OS but no fscking way does it have DOS.

When saying BIOS one usually means the IBM-compatible BIOS used in every PC from the first IBM PC. This system is either licensed from IBM or cloned by someone else, the first being Compaq. Intel is working on a replacement for this system that is not compatible with the old BIOS - it has a fancy codename that I don't remember (Phoenix, perhaps?). It has been rumored that Apple plans to use this system from the beginning.

Lateralus · Nov 1, 2005, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by P

(Phoenix, perhaps?)

Phoenix is the name of the most populaar BIOS for the past few decades.

As far as I know, Intel hasn't finalized their designation for their BIOS replacement but for now it's called 'Intel Platform for Innovation Framework for EFI'.

Just rolls off the tongue, eh?

P · 06:11 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Phoenix is the name of the most populaar BIOS for the past few decades.

As far as I know, Intel hasn't finalized their designation for their BIOS replacement but for now it's called 'Intel Platform for Innovation Framework for EFI'.

Just rolls off the tongue, eh?

Yes, that's right - and they're working on a different BIOS replacement, now that you mention it. The codename I was looking for was "Tiano", but Intel's probably going to call it something boring in the end anyway. Tiano was just the codename, but that... thing looks more convoluted than even their average bullsh*t.

mduell · Nov 1, 2005, 08:58 PM

Originally Posted by Lateralus

As far as I know, Intel hasn't finalized their designation for their BIOS replacement but for now it's called 'Intel Platform for Innovation Framework for EFI'.

Just rolls off the tongue, eh?

The IPIFE is an implmentation of EFI. I hope they'll come up with a better name before they pitch it to consumers

Extensible Firmware Interface is part of the Intel Boot Initiative. It sits between the OS loader and the firmware, as shown below.

The specification is currently at version 1.10 (available here) and they have training courses running next week (link).

Scandalous Ion Cannon · Nov 2, 2005, 03:33 AM

More cheaper??

goMac · Nov 2, 2005, 04:27 AM

Originally Posted by Ilgaz

I had various reasons including the backwards BIOS based system.

...and Apple isn't using BIOS.

Big Mac · Nov 2, 2005, 06:53 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

...and Apple isn't using BIOS.

When did anyone officially say they weren't? The developer PCs are using BIOS. Rumor has it that Apple will use EFI, but Apple has never stated that as fact.

CaptainHaddock · 10:13 AM

Another possible reason Apple isn't going with AMD (that I haven't seen noted here) is that AMD's fabrication plants cannot actually make enough processors to meet the demand of a major computer supplier like Apple. Apple is currently shipping around 4-5 million processors a year, and that will increase.

Plus, a partnership with Intel yields other goodies, like EFI and wifi chipsets.

Edit: After looking up AMD's numbers, I see they make more processors than I thought. Still, meeting Apple's requirements on schedule would be tough if even IBM had difficulty.

Person Man · Nov 2, 2005, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The developer PCs are using BIOS.

It's been stated time and time again, DON'T USE THE DEVELOPER KITS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE SHIPPING MACS WILL BE LIKE!

A lot of the boot-up functionality that makes a Mac a Mac, like holding down C to boot up the CD drive, etc is not possible with BIOS. Apple will be using something other then a BIOS.

They used off-the-shelf motherboards for their developer kits, which are designed to use a BIOS. Whatever custom motherboard Apple is developing will likely use something different, whether it be EFI or whatever.

mduell · Nov 2, 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Another possible reason Apple isn't going with AMD (that I haven't seen noted here) is that AMD's fabrication plants cannot actually make enough processors to meet the demand of a major computer supplier like Apple. Apple is currently shipping around 4-5 million processors a year, and that will increase.

Plus, a partnership with Intel yields other goodies, like EFI and wifi chipsets.

Edit: After looking up AMD's numbers, I see they make more processors than I thought. Still, meeting Apple's requirements on schedule would be tough if even IBM had difficulty.

AMD has plenty of capacity for Apple (espically with their new fab 36)... they would only run into trouble trying to exclusively support a larger OEM like Dell.
Also, Intel makes their own (great) chipsets, while AMD relies on other companies (who have hit-and-miss reputations).

chrisutley · Nov 2, 2005, 01:40 PM

Apple has been a slave to smaller chip makers since FOREVER. It has impacted their ability to innovate and lead the market. Intel may have fallen behind in some areas short-term, but the wise bet for Apple was to hitch their processing future to the giant - Intel.

IBM was going to solve the old MOT problems, with their state of the art facilities and what not. It didn't happen, at least not fast enough. IBM had their shot and blew it.

AMD was probably never more than leverage for Apple to use when bargaining with Intel.

Catfish_Man · Nov 2, 2005, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Person Man

It's been stated time and time again, DON'T USE THE DEVELOPER KITS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE SHIPPING MACS WILL BE LIKE!

A lot of the boot-up functionality that makes a Mac a Mac, like holding down C to boot up the CD drive, etc is not possible with BIOS. Apple will be using something other then a BIOS.

They used off-the-shelf motherboards for their developer kits, which are designed to use a BIOS. Whatever custom motherboard Apple is developing will likely use something different, whether it be EFI or whatever.

The way I heard it (on one of the Apple developer mailing lists) was that Apple hadn't decided what they would end up using, and were evaluating options. They recognized the fact that people preferred EFI to the normal PC BIOS though.

goMac · Nov 2, 2005, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by Big Mac

When did anyone officially say they weren't? The developer PCs are using BIOS. Rumor has it that Apple will use EFI, but Apple has never stated that as fact.

However, Apple has stated as fact publicly to developers they will not be using BIOS.

goMac · Nov 2, 2005, 10:30 PM

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man

The way I heard it (on one of the Apple developer mailing lists) was that Apple hadn't decided what they would end up using, and were evaluating options. They recognized the fact that people preferred EFI to the normal PC BIOS though.

I think what they said instead was they were deciding between continuing to use open firmware and EFI.

Spliffdaddy · Nov 2, 2005, 11:33 PM

geez.

I bet you a million dollars you can't tell me what's bad about having a BIOS nor what's better about Apple having a BIOS that's given a different name.

Ain't like it matters. Especially considering that it's all x86 now. And Steve Jobs won't have to fabricate benchmarks.

mduell · Nov 2, 2005, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

I think what they said instead was they were deciding between continuing to use open firmware and EFI.

OpenFirmware is dead according to their universal binary programming guide (page 48)... all it really does at the moment is make the video cards 30-200% more expensive.

xira · Nov 3, 2005, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by Helmling

You're all wrong.

The reason Apple picked Intel has nothing to do with IBM keeping up in the chipspeed race. It has nothing to do with speed at all.

Jobs has a plan and you saw phase one of it come out of the gate today.

Intel has worked up a built-in security system for downloading feature films for their chips. This was a major concern for Jobs and the future of movies and computers.

Picture it: You open up your Mac, go to iFlix and buy a movie for $9.95. It downloads to your computer and you then update your video-capable iPod so that you can then take that movie anywhere and plug in your AV cable to watch it...but you can't copy it anywhere because of the technology that Apple and Intel have worked together on to keep the data locked up.

Jobs wants to do for the film industry what he has done for music.

It's a good plan.

bzzzzzzt. sorry, one major flaw

who's going to run out and buy a new computer to .. download movies? let alone most of the market share is PC users, who's going to go run out and get a mac to download movies?

sorry, doesn't make sense.

IBM was shafting Apple, that isn't arguable

IBM didn't deliver, so Apple changed players. end. of. story.