Apple aren't a software company, though.

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #209,834 by pwhysall 6/4/05 1:34:26 PM Reply	Apple aren't a software company, though. Even if a Pentium of some stripe did appear in an Apple box, you can bet your gonads that OS X will never run on commodity PCs. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #209,862 by folkert 6/4/05 10:43:07 PM Reply	Yeah, we wouldn't want it to become popular or something. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [image\|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg\|\|\|\|]
Post #209,874 by pwhysall 6/5/05 2:54:42 AM Reply	Selling desktop OSes for PCs is not a business model... ...if you're not Microsoft. Apple have survived this long because they're a hardware company. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #209,886 by folkert 6/5/05 8:35:58 AM Reply	Then... umm Why did Bill Gates have to prop it up a few years ago? When he could have easily gone for the KILL! They were vulnerable big time, yet he chose to "invest" in Apple. Of course, the same thing could be said about Chrysler, in the 70's GM could have thrown a hand grenade in the coffin, then quickly nailed it shut. we'd no longer hear about'em. -- [link\|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net\|greg], [link\|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry\|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ *i_wethey* [image\|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg\|\|\|\|]
Post #209,898 by pwhysall 6/5/05 9:53:37 AM Reply	Antitrust, I expect. Peter [link\|http://www.ubuntulinux.org\|Ubuntu Linux] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home] Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Post #209,905 by tuberculosis 6/5/05 10:59:13 AM 8/21/07 6:05:07 AM Reply	Where else would MS get ideas for new features? Most advances on the PC platform are pioneered by Apple. They don't necessarily invent the stuff - but they definitely get it popularized and adopted sooner. For one example - wireless networking. Yes you could get it from Lucent - but virtually nobody knew about 802.11b until Jobs demo'd the Airport in a MacWorld keynote. "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 06:05:07 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #209,975 by tuberculosis 6/5/05 11:20:24 PM 8/21/07 6:06:22 AM Reply	I agree Windows is popular and look what a cesspool that is. I have a couple concerns right off the bat. Registers - PPC has a boatload of registers. x86 as I understand it (not particularly well) doesn't seem to have enough and pays for it. Endianism - I don't want to deal with swapping bytes around going in and out of sockets. I've got a boatload of old code that assumes that the machine and the wire match and I have no interest in fucking around with byteswapping. Altivec - there's an awful lot of audio code that relies on this stuff. What will be the equivalent? How long will we have to fondle ourselves waiting for efficient ports of pro-apps (audio, video, etc)? "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 06:06:22 AM EDT Expand All History

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

iwethey.org

Like many lawyers, he's overly fond of argument, even when in agreement. Not that anyone here would be into that...
107 ms