IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Apple Forum / One more thing
Post #210,002
by altmann
6/6/05 4:27:28 AM
Reply
New One more thing
From the bottom of [link|http://pview.findlaw.com/view/3340942_1?&channel=CCC|http://pview.findlaw...42_1?&channel=CCC]

"Transitive Technologies: Represented Transitive Technologies in a co-development and licensing agreement with Apple Computer"

We shall see.
--
Chris Altmann
Post #210,020
by Another Scott
6/6/05 9:48:15 AM
Reply
New Thanks.
Lots of companies are working on virtualization. E.g. AMD and Intel are adding extensions to their newest chips to allow multiple OSes to run "simultaneously". There's overhead with such approaches, obviously, and even more so if the program assumes a different instruction set.

It also introduces the "Win-OS/2" problem again. If the virtualization is good enough, there will be little incentive for ISVs to write to the native CPU. Then Windows x86 wins by default. If it's not good enough, then the migration to the new CPU or OS is too painful for customers with existing vital software. Then Windows x86 wins by default.

It's tough for translation/virtualization to win unless the underlying CPU is ~ 10 times faster than the incumbent. The Cell might have a chance, but it's hard to see that virtualization of existing MacOS X software on x86 variants being a compelling solution.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Intel Apples? - (andread) - (29) - May 23, 2005, 05:51:53 PM EDT
         doubtful - (SpiceWare) - (1) - May 23, 2005, 06:06:42 PM EDT
             I agree - (folkert) - May 23, 2005, 10:47:19 PM EDT
         Cnet says announcement expected Monday 6/6/2005. - (Another Scott) - (20) - June 4, 2005, 12:08:52 PM EDT
             Re: "write Intel software". - (a6l6e6x) - (13) - June 4, 2005, 01:18:06 PM EDT
                 Good and bad - (admin) - June 4, 2005, 01:23:57 PM EDT
                 Apple aren't a software company, though. - (pwhysall) - (6) - June 4, 2005, 01:34:26 PM EDT
                     Yeah, we wouldn't want it to become popular or something. -NT - (folkert) - (5) - June 4, 2005, 10:43:07 PM EDT
                         Selling desktop OSes for PCs is not a business model... - (pwhysall) - (3) - June 5, 2005, 02:54:42 AM EDT
                             Then... umm - (folkert) - (2) - June 5, 2005, 08:35:58 AM EDT
                                 Antitrust, I expect. -NT - (pwhysall) - June 5, 2005, 09:53:37 AM EDT
                                 Where else would MS get ideas for new features? - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 06:05:07 AM EDT
                         I agree - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 06:06:22 AM EDT
                 True, but let me elaborate. - (Another Scott) - (4) - June 4, 2005, 02:00:34 PM EDT
                     Apple running Intel on their new tablet computer - (Meerkat) - June 4, 2005, 10:24:27 PM EDT
                     Andrew Orlowski on the Osborne Effect. - (Another Scott) - June 8, 2005, 01:03:02 PM EDT
                     The Osborne Effect didn't kill Osborne Computer. - (Another Scott) - (1) - June 20, 2005, 06:18:03 PM EDT
                         Reading that reminds me of IMSAI. - (static) - June 20, 2005, 09:40:41 PM EDT
             NY Times has the story now, with more details. - (Another Scott) - (5) - June 5, 2005, 08:47:50 PM EDT
                 Why do they write for it now? - (altmann) - (4) - June 5, 2005, 09:47:55 PM EDT
                     Various reasons. - (Another Scott) - (3) - June 5, 2005, 11:00:54 PM EDT
                         Galaxy not the same thing - (altmann) - (2) - June 5, 2005, 11:47:44 PM EDT
                             One more thing - (altmann) - (1) - June 6, 2005, 04:27:28 AM EDT
                                 Thanks. - (Another Scott) - June 6, 2005, 09:48:15 AM EDT
         Intel PowerPC CPUs? - (altmann) - (3) - June 5, 2005, 03:55:23 AM EDT
             Entirely more feasible than the alternatives. imho -NT - (pwhysall) - June 5, 2005, 06:42:47 AM EDT
             makes more sense than Mac on x86 - (cforde) - (1) - June 6, 2005, 12:56:38 AM EDT
                 There is a good reason. - (folkert) - June 6, 2005, 07:01:28 AM EDT
         Interesting theory on why Apple is switching - (bluke) - June 6, 2005, 05:57:52 AM EDT
         It's true. They're switching to x86 (new thread) - (altmann) - June 6, 2005, 01:55:43 PM EDT

Nannyish, perhaps.
52 ms