Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 23rd Apr 2012 20:26 UTC
Intel AnandTech puts Intel's new Ivy Bridge through its paces. "While it's not enough to tempt existing Sandy Bridge owners, if you missed the upgrade last year then Ivy Bridge is solid ground to walk on. It's still the best performing client x86 architecture on the planet and a little to a lot better than its predecessor depending on how much you use the on-die GPU."
Thread beginning with comment 515636
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Radio
by lubod on Wed 25th Apr 2012 06:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Radio"
lubod
Member since:
2009-02-02

Bassbeast, I found your analysis of current AMD/Intel CPUs interesting, informative, and probably in line with my own opinion, more or less.

But will somebody please take the urban myth that "Microsoft saved Apple in the 1990's" out back behind the tool shed and put a bullet in its head?

Microsoft didn't help out Apple, they helped themselves! Apple, even at their lowest point (remember their shares at $10 per? I do.) never, EVER had a market cap much below $1 billion (1 with 9 zeros) that I recall. How could 180 million (only 6 zeros there) "save" such a company? Especially given its often criticized high profit margins? What investor would have turned them down for a loan?

By investing, Microsoft was buying good PR, convincing the US DOJ and the EU that they still had viable competitors, convincing mixed Mac/Windows shops they had confidence in Apple to survive (at least in the short term), and buying the installation of IE as a default browser on the only other large-scale commercial OS in the marketplace. Not to mention putting the Apple "look and feel" lawsuits to bed forever with money, the way they never could in court.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by Radio
by zima on Mon 30th Apr 2012 23:50 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Radio"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Those two things (MS helped Apple, and MS helped themselves) aren't exclusive.

You yourself almost write how it restored long-term confidence in Apple, a company visibly straying on its path at the time (or even failing as that company - what came of it wasn't strictly the same Apple, but also a corporate coup of sorts from Next).
A company on a shaky ground because of inferior and more expensive offerings - but with a bit crazy followers readily buying them to "help save Apple" ( http://www.forbes.com/1997/08/08/column.html )

And the suit was put to bed in court ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp... ), there were just some lingering squabble.

Edited 2012-04-30 23:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2