5 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older
5.
 
Re: Apple -> x86 + MS (Xbox) -> PPC = Anarch
Jun 5, 2005, 14:13
5.
Re: Apple -> x86 + MS (Xbox) -> PPC = Anarch Jun 5, 2005, 14:13
Jun 5, 2005, 14:13
 
Virtual PC?

HA! HA! HA! That's a a joke. You're right about that. I don't touch the stuff. Especially when I can do it for *FREE* better than Micro$

Speaking of which, I know a company whom's name I won't mention, their forte is convincing endusers to switch to Virtual PC and Citrix. Yet they don't know shit about implementing application services. They constantly try to pick my brain like a couple of little geeks. I guess they're profitable? They seem to make their rent every month at the office space.

On a another note, I'm quite sure someone will develop a multi tasking multi core CPU that will be capable of mimicing any instructions, so all OS can be happy happy happy.

For now. I can't complain. I've got Panther and Tiger running on my x86 processors (not virtually), but for the most part I really don't use the Mac stuff that much.

Lightwave and Zbrush runs great for me on XP (thanks to Micro$)


This comment was edited on Jun 5, 14:16.
-The Dude-

Vic B.
4.
 
Apple -> x86 + MS (Xbox) -> PPC = Anarch
Jun 5, 2005, 12:16
4.
Apple -> x86 + MS (Xbox) -> PPC = Anarch Jun 5, 2005, 12:16
Jun 5, 2005, 12:16
 
I think it has to do with volume and what-not.

Motoroloa was slow to develop and was having problems with the volume of shipping. So they went IBM.

IBM has been having problems supplying 90nm chips in sufficient quantity.

So, who's left? AMD and Intel. While I'd prefer AMD chips they don't have anywhere near the production capacity as Intel. So they went Intel.

What I'm curious about is how this is going to play out. I mean, they'd need a very good emulation layer to allow older OSX software to run on x86 without major slowdowns. Likewise, if software developers start writing code for x86 OSX, then PPC OSX is going to need a good emulation layer as well.

And don't get me started on Virtual PC; that thing is slow as hell.



"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurmama

This comment was edited on Jun 5, 12:19.
"Space. It seems to go on and on forever. But then you get to the end and a gorilla starts throwing barrels at you."
-Fry, Futurama
3.
 
Re: Apple switches to Intel
Jun 4, 2005, 19:36
3.
Re: Apple switches to Intel Jun 4, 2005, 19:36
Jun 4, 2005, 19:36
 
I don't see the problem. Currently I succesfully run everything I want on CISC processors. OSX included i.e: OS9, panther, Tiger.

Since the death of the Amiga back in the 80's, I really don't care who makes what to run on what. Because as far as I'm concerned, the problems with computing are either CPU based or OS/API based and no one makes a reliable design.

Anyway, if they do it, GREAT! If they don't, GREAT! I'll still be able to run Apple OSes and programs on Linux or Win32 systems
-The Dude-

Vic B.
2.
 
Re: Apple switches to Intel
Jun 4, 2005, 19:14
2.
Re: Apple switches to Intel Jun 4, 2005, 19:14
Jun 4, 2005, 19:14
 
Apple to ditch IBM, switch to Intel chips.

I prefer the title used by (the obviously biased) AMDZone.com:
Apple Chooses Slowest, Hottest Running CPUs


I have read of a place where humans do battle in a ring of Jell-O. -- Tealc
If one synchronized swimmer drowns, do they all drown? -- Bucky B. Katt
1.
 
Apple switches to Intel
Jun 4, 2005, 18:13
1.
Apple switches to Intel Jun 4, 2005, 18:13
Jun 4, 2005, 18:13
 
[Keanu Reeves voice]

Whoa!

[/Keanu Reeves voice]


You cannot make anything fool-proof. The fools are too inventive

This comment was edited on Jun 4, 18:15.
You cannot make anything fool-proof. The fools are too inventive

GW: Tr Gandhi (Ra), Shiva Sung (Mo), Mangal Pandey (Ne), Rana Pratap Singh (Wa), Boddhi Satwa (Ri), Bhagat Singh (De), Bahadur Shastri (Pa)
Avatar 11944
5 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  ] Older