Galaxy not the same thing

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #209,985 by altmann 6/5/05 11:47:44 PM Reply	Galaxy not the same thing Galaxy was, from what I could gather, a cross platform toolkit that one would have to explicity program to. QuickTransit translates binaries compiled for one CPU instruction set to another instruction set at runtime. If it works as advertised, 3rd party devs wouldn't have to recompile and redistribute their apps initially (they could do so later if/when they are ready. Trolltech makes a cross platform toolkit. They seem to be doing ok. I too am wondering how the RDF will hold up when the audience starts flinging 'reality' at Steve on-stage. -- Chris Altmann
Post #210,002 by altmann 6/6/05 4:27:28 AM Reply	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	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

Meta-Admin Notice: You Sillies
160 ms