Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 14th Feb 2006 00:14 UTC, submitted by aaronb
Intel "We set out on investigating this issue immediately after it was discovered, but soon found out that it was a lot more complicated than we thought upon first glance. We've spent almost the past two weeks performing non-stop battery life testing on five notebooks with up to 4 different USB devices, testing theories, trying to pinpoint exactly what causes this problem and testing Microsoft's fix. What follows is the process that we went through in our labs when faced with this strange bug."
Thread beginning with comment 95332
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: haha
by MediaSex on Tue 14th Feb 2006 02:28 UTC in reply to "haha"
Member since:

"Not to gloat, but perhaps Apple should have stuck with PPC. ;) "

Apple didn't have a choice.

They were dumped as a customer by IBM.

Just wait till Apple tries to replace the quad-970 with something from Intel later this year. That's going to be painful to watch.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: haha
by Celerate on Tue 14th Feb 2006 02:51 in reply to "RE: haha"
Celerate Member since:

Can you actually back that up, or is it still nothing more than speculation?

After Apple made the switch a lot if different stories flew around, I don't remember seeing anything more than speculation behind your theory. If someone can prove what you're saying I'm waiting for a link, otherwise please don't say such things as if they were fact because that'll just confuse people.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: haha
by RenatoRam on Tue 14th Feb 2006 07:25 in reply to "RE[2]: haha"
RenatoRam Member since:

Simple logic. Apple is known for bullying the chip manufacturers to induce them to produce exactly what they need (they did it with Motorola, and continued with IBM).

Then, after many millions in R&D are spent, they place *tiny* orders. Just enough to fulfill the contract.

Then they can write "sold out", and request the manufacture of the chips another time.

All this process is costly to the manufacturer, but could be accepted... if Apple did not have also a long record of using his hw manufacturers as scapegoats ("oh, it's not us, it's the evil Motorola that does slow chips"...).

Apple is a tiny customer for IBM, and a tiny customer that is an utter nuisance.

IBM dumped Apple. Simple logic.

(bear in mind that *before* selling the PC and Laptop line to Lenovo IBM was already getting more than half its revenue from consulting, NOT production)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: haha
by rayiner on Tue 14th Feb 2006 03:19 in reply to "RE: haha"
rayiner Member since:

The 970 can't hold up to an Opteron at the same clockspeed, and Woodcrest is projected to both have better IPC than Opteron and launch at 3+ GHz. Given Yonah already scales to 2.16 GHz on a power-optimized 65nm process, I wouldn't count on Intel missing the 3 GHz mark with Woodcrest when they have more than 2x the TDP of Yonah to work with. In pure general purpose CPU performance, Woodcrest is going to dominate.

Now, super Altivec-optimized code is going to suffer, because SSE really isn't a great replacement, but to tell the truth, vector extensions are overrated for general purpose processors. They were big on the Mac platform, because until the G5 the regular FPU performance was extremely weak. Given the very strong FPU of the G5, Altivec becomes much less useful. There is a reason IBM has left VMX out of POWER4, POWER5, and POWER6. Heck, the G5 already has a rather scaled-back Altivec implementation, compared to the G4, but nobody really seems to complain about it. When CoreImage/CoreVideo take up the slack for image and video processing, the only people who are really going to miss Altivec are people doing signal processing, which is of course what Altivec was designed for.

Edited 2006-02-14 03:22

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[3]: haha
by MediaSex on Tue 14th Feb 2006 05:09 in reply to "RE[2]: haha"
RE[3]: haha
by suryad on Tue 14th Feb 2006 08:28 in reply to "RE[2]: haha"
suryad Member since:

Have you seen benchmarks? I mean come on. Go to here and read the benchmarks. The Opteron is faster than G5s. As for Yonah, it is clock for clock just as fast as AMD Athlon 64s as shown in Anandtech benchmarks. Right now honestly Intel does not have anything worth gloating over. They are catching up right now to AMD whereas AMD is already planning on releasing AM2 socket as well as the socket F platform which has some crazy innovations in it. If you thought the current Hypertransport in AMD platforms was fast wait till you read about the new speeds.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[2]: haha
by Drumhellar on Tue 14th Feb 2006 10:38 in reply to "RE: haha"
Drumhellar Member since:

I suppose this is the wrong place for this comment, seeing as this is about an XP/USB 2.0 issue, but, I suspect Apple switched to Intel not for performance reasons, trouble with IBM, or the need for laptop chips, but rather it is TPM that Apple is after.

Apple wants to eventually sell movies through their iTunes store, and the movie industry is even more uptight about copy protection than the record industry (just quieter about it). The TPM chip gives Apple a much more effective means to enforce the fair-use limitations that the movie companies would love to see.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: haha
by nzjrs on Tue 14th Feb 2006 12:46 in reply to "RE[2]: haha"
nzjrs Member since:

I agree, its sad that as soon as the fanboys get involved, apple articles always turn into a love/hate/flame fest and tend to obscure issues like TPM, DRM, fair use, and freedom in general.

If the world is to wake up to the freedom that is being stolen from them by comperate america then even the fanboys have to open their eyes.

note: I am not trying to steer this discussion to a DRM flame war, i am just particuarly sad about the future at the moment!

Reply Parent Score: 1