On 2005.6.8, at 01:57 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Sherm. For those who don't know me, I'm the perl maintainer at Apple, and I admit I keep a low profile on this list. But I wanted clear up a few things:
Well, Ed, I'm not Sherm, and I don't have any claim to fame, but I wish you could clear up why Steve would do something as insane as inserting Apple into the x86 monoculture.
I'd have no complaints if Apple were offering Mac OS X86 boxes as a second line. I don't buy the megahertz myth, so I have no problem paying a little higher price for the PowerPC Mac Mini compared with an x86 of similar clock, even with the FSB rate a tenth of the CPU clock instead of a half. On the contrary, low average power on the Mac Mini fits it into the Japanese power budget just fine.
The most frustrating part of Mac OS X is the lack of product range. For instance, I'd love a PPC box the size of the Mac Mini at half the spec and loaded only with Darwin, but with an extra NIC, for $300. (I'd by three at $200 each, but I'm trying to make a point here.) The current speed/power is only a serious detriment to a bunch of critics who won't be buying Macs anyway.
(And, just between you and me, but I don't see why Steve is so enamored of Pentium M, especially without seeing whether iNTEL can actually push that piece of junk up to 64 bits.)
Anyway, if you by any chance have a communication path up high enough to reach whoever decided that PowerPC had to be dropped, I'd appreciate it if you could be so kind as to pass on a request to keep the PowerPC line going as long as it doesn't just totally bleed red ink across multiple quarters.
-- Joel Rees The master plan in open source is simple: The user figures out what he or she needs and does it.
