You are indeed the biggest whiner I've ever seen LOL but I didn't misrepresent anything, just exposed you trying to claim the Cell is "far more advanced" than what Apple could ever need when Sony uses it in a kid's game console.
It is generally said that nobody even takes advantage of all of the Cell's potential
No kidding Sherlock, starting with Steve Jobs. While you were busy trying to turn this thread into an IBM advertisement, I was reading what Jobs said about current multicore programming and how Apple's new O/S will make what is currently difficult if not impossible much easier for developers to access. Too bad for IBM, they already got kicked to the curb, Cell and all, and more propoganda and insults from you isn't going to change it.
I love it! You just said you don't misrepresent, when you did it again in this very post! Apple needed an advanced desktop processor like the Core series, Apple needed an advanced server/workstation processor like the Xeon series, Apple did not need an advanced streaming processor like the Cell.
in a kid's game console
Of all of this generation's consoles, the PS3 is the one most considered as the adult game console, especially considering that it has the highest price. It debuted at $600, and Sony was taking a several-hundred dollar loss on each at that price.
No kidding Sherlock, starting with Steve Jobs.
Please show were jobs specifically addressed the complexity of getting the absolute maximum performance out of the Cell processor. I'm waiting. Actually, the reason most people can't get max performance is that most software is games. Game developers were not used to using multiple cores when this generation's multi-core consoles came out. IBM has already shown a program that almost hits the theoretical throughput of the Cell.
While you were busy trying to turn this thread into an IBM advertisement, I was reading what Jobs said about current multicore programming and how Apple's new O/S will make what is currently difficult if not impossible much easier for developers to access
Duh! Another subject of the thread was Apple giving access to the matrix processor that resides many Macs -- the GPU. In discussing how powerful programming access to a matrix processor can be I gave a current example -- the Cell.
Too bad for IBM, they already got kicked to the curb
IBM lost a customer that was relatively so small that IBM didn't even bother to put in much R&D for that customer as it wasn't worth it. IBM moved on to more profitable pastures. Apple found a supplier that has motive other than Apple to keep its chips cutting-edge. Do you think Intel would do all this R&D for the Core series if Apple was the only buyer?