David W. Fenton schrieb:
You think those chips were not in development long before Apple made
its announcement? You think IBM said Oh no! We've got to come up
with a chip! To the labs, boys! and two weeks later announced a
finished dual-core processer?
No, it was there all along, and
Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They didn't just try to ensure cross-compatibility. According to
Steve Jobs in this year's WWDC keynote, there have been fully-compiled
and fully-functioning Intel builds of OSX as far back as 10.0.
And, in fact, probably before. Before the merger, the
On 18/08/05, Stephen Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
They didn't just try to ensure cross-compatibility. According to
Steve Jobs in this year's WWDC keynote, there have been fully-compiled
and fully-functioning Intel builds of OSX as far back as 10.0.
On 18 Aug 2005 at 8:51, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
David W. Fenton schrieb:
You think those chips were not in development long before Apple made
its announcement? You think IBM said Oh no! We've got to come up
with a chip! To the labs, boys! and two weeks later announced a
finished
David,
I read it, but I just don't think the author makes a compelling case.
- Darcy
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brooklyn, NY
On 18 Aug 2005, at 3:55 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 18 Aug 2005 at 8:51, Johannes Gebauer wrote:
Did you read the article I cited, or not? If not, then you're
As some of you may already be aware, some intrepid geeko techs are already
trying to figure out how to get OSX to run on an ordinary PC, and some ae now
speculating on how cheaply a PC could be built to run OSX:
http://www.osx86project.org/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=27Itemid=2
At 8/17/2005 08:15 AM, Simon Troup wrote:
As some of you may already be aware, some intrepid geeko techs are already
trying to figure out how to get OSX to run on an ordinary PC, and some ae
now speculating on how cheaply a PC could be built to run OSX:
I read yesterday that it had already been
On 17/08/05, Simon Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As some of you may already be aware, some intrepid geeko techs
are already trying to figure out how to get OSX to run on an
ordinary PC, and some ae now speculating on how cheaply a PC
could be built to run OSX:
[link snipped]
This looks like
Simon Troup / 2005/08/17 / 08:15 AM wrote:
I suppose the fact that Apple make the hardware and the OS means that
there are stability advantages, but how bad can it be if you built your
own system?
In my 17 years of my Mac life, I made a fatal mistake by buying
PowerTower Pro, a Mac clone. At
[RE-SENT TO LIST. AGAIN. HENRY, WHERE ARE YOU???]
On 17 Aug 2005, at 8:15 AM, Simon Troup wrote:
As some of you may already be aware, some intrepid geeko techs are
already trying to figure out how to get OSX to run on an ordinary
PC, and some ae now speculating on how cheaply a PC could
On 17 Aug 2005 at 13:53, Darcy James Argue wrote:
The whole point is that after years of being
shackled by Motorola's and IBM's disappointing production, Apple had
little choice but to go with x86 processors or continue to be left
behind (especially w/r/t portables).
I thought that
On 17 Aug 2005, at 2:31 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 at 13:53, Darcy James Argue wrote:
The whole point is that after years of being
shackled by Motorola's and IBM's disappointing production, Apple had
little choice but to go with x86 processors or continue to be left
behind
On 17 Aug 2005 at 15:31, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005, at 2:31 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 at 13:53, Darcy James Argue wrote:
The whole point is that after years of being
shackled by Motorola's and IBM's disappointing production, Apple
had little choice but
On 17 Aug 2005, at 9:19 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Not at all. IBM has denied it, of course, but since both Intel's and
IBM's long-term roadmaps are secret, we have no way of knowing if the
Apple line about long-term power-per-watt with Intel vs. IBM is
correct. Nonetheless, it's certainly
On 17 Aug 2005 at 21:28, Darcy James Argue wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005, at 9:19 PM, David W. Fenton wrote:
Not at all. IBM has denied it, of course, but since both Intel's
and IBM's long-term roadmaps are secret, we have no way of knowing
if the Apple line about long-term power-per-watt with
On 17/08/05, David W. Fenton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Taking the time to re-architect your flagship OS (however much you've
worked all along to try to ensure cross-compatibility), as opposed to
waiting a few months for the new IBM chips?
They didn't just try to ensure cross-compatibility.
16 matches
Mail list logo
