On Jun 12, 9:53 pm, Wallace Adrian D'Alessio
fluxstrin...@gmail.com wrote:
PCI slot based accelerators have a bottleneck built right in. Hardly
worth the effort IMO.
mmm but g5 has pci-X, right, and that does not have bottleneck ?
anyway this should be some thing more like another computer
On 6/11/09 4:32 PM, Kris Tilford at ktilfo...@cox.net wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Dan wrote:
As emulators go, Rosetta - the black box that makes PPC stuff run on
x86 Macs - is pretty good.
Now we need the opposite emulator, the one that will allow future
Intel x86 only code to
I'm still thinking about picking up a Quicksilver 2002 to use as a
light-to-medium-duty server. Power Architecture is a great and
efficient platform, too bad Apple didn't follow it through.
DISCLAIMER: I work for IBM as a contractor, but I liked their products
even before I started working with
My new 13 MBP just came in the mail today. I'm typing this on it...
it is sublime :)
That x86 on a PCI card reminded me of the old Apple DOS
Compatibility card that was available for early Power PCs?
http://www.mug.jhmi.edu/mirrors/infoalley/0496/25/pc.html
I actually have one of those in a
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:32 PM, Kris Tilfordktilfo...@cox.net wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Dan wrote:
As emulators go, Rosetta - the black box that makes PPC stuff run on
x86 Macs - is pretty good.
Now we need the opposite emulator, the one that will allow future
Intel x86 only
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:40 PM, Kris Tilfordktilfo...@cox.net wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:32 PM, James E. Therrault wrote:
Maybe someone could come up with a mini Intel motherboard that would
fit
into one of the PCI slots...
This is a good idea for Sonnet and all the other aftermarket
Yellowdog linux is up to 6.1 and supports G4 G5. They seem to be heavily
involved with the game console market as well. I haven't tried it yet, but I
will as soon as my 2nd hard drive arrives. I use kubuntu on an old PC, so
I'm somewhat used to linux.
PowerMac 9600 *Open Suse 10.3* and System 9.2 dual boot (512 MB Ram, G4 400
Sonnet, USB2 + Firewire 400 Cambo Card)PowerMac 7200 System 9.1 (384 Mb Ram,
G 400 Sonnet + Tempo 66 Card)
Powerbook 1.67 15 Hi-Res Mac Os 10.5, *Open Suse 11+ *Dual Boot ( 2 GB DDR2
Ram, Firewire 800 External HD)
PowerMac
On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:23 PM, tortoise wrote:
Also, the POWER architecture is not going away in the least despite
Apple being against it.
Apple did not abandon the PowerPC...the PowerPC makers abandoned
Apple, in favor of those game consoles and high end servers (IBM) and
automobiles (The
WOULD
--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu wrote:
From: Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: The powerpc now and in the future
To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 11:47 AM
On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:23 PM, tortoise
WOULD not make, or COULD not make?
--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu wrote:
From: Bruce Johnson john...@pharmacy.arizona.edu
Subject: Re: The powerpc now and in the future
To: g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
Date: Thursday, June 11, 2009, 11:47 AM
On Jun
On Jun 11, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Mike Baker wrote:
WOULD not make, or COULD not make?
Both IBM and Moto were unwilling to expend the resources necessary to
come up with a low power solution.
Their existing processes COULD not make high-performance, low power
chips, and they WOULD not
At 8:47 AM -0700 6/11/2009, Bruce Johnson wrote:
On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:23 PM, tortoise wrote:
Also, the POWER architecture is not going away in the least despite
Apple being against it.
Apple did not abandon the PowerPC...the PowerPC makers abandoned
Apple, in favor of those game consoles
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:47 AM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
On Jun 10, 2009, at 9:23 PM, tortoise wrote:
Also, the POWER architecture is not going away in the least despite
Apple being against it.
Apple did not abandon the PowerPC...the PowerPC makers abandoned
Apple, in favor of those game
At 2:25 PM -0400 6/11/2009, John Callahan wrote:
I had three to four thousand dollars in applications that were
disabled (almost) by the change. I purchased my Intel iMac at an
Apple store and when I questioned the salesperson as to the ability
to use my PPC applications, was told yes. As far
On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Dan wrote:
As emulators go, Rosetta - the black box that makes PPC stuff run on
x86 Macs - is pretty good.
Now we need the opposite emulator, the one that will allow future
Intel x86 only code to run on our PPC Macs. I doubt this will ever
exist, but it would
Mike Baker wrote:
WOULD not make, or COULD not make?
A very good point.
My personal experience with both, Motorola and IBM is that neither of
these companies had a can do property.
Way back in the early 1990's when I was working tech support for Apple
and the PPC was just making its
On Jun 11, 2009, at 11:25 AM, John Callahan wrote:
I had three to four thousand
dollars in applications that were disabled (almost) by the change. I
purchased my Intel iMac at an Apple store and when I questioned the
salesperson as to the ability to use my PPC applications, was told
yes.
Kris Tilford wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Dan wrote:
As emulators go, Rosetta - the black box that makes PPC stuff run on
x86 Macs - is pretty good.
Now we need the opposite emulator, the one that will allow future
Intel x86 only code to run on our PPC Macs. I doubt this will
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:32 PM, James E. Therrault wrote:
Maybe someone could come up with a mini Intel motherboard that would
fit
into one of the PCI slots...
This is a good idea for Sonnet and all the other aftermarket upgrade
companies to pursue.
At 3:32 PM -0500 6/11/2009, James E. Therrault wrote:
Kris Tilford wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 2:12 PM, Dan wrote:
As emulators go, Rosetta - the black box that makes PPC stuff run on
x86 Macs - is pretty good.
Now we need the opposite emulator, the one that will allow future
Intel
On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Dan wrote:
At 5:36 PM -0400 6/11/2009, John Callahan wrote:
The one application that comes to mind is AppleWorks
What's wrong with AppleWorks under Rosetta?
(as I recall) six hundred dollars for AppleWorks
AppleWorks, in it's prior incarnation as
At 6:52 PM -0400 6/11/2009, John Callahan wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Dan wrote:
At 5:36 PM -0400 6/11/2009, John Callahan wrote:
The one application that comes to mind is AppleWorks
What's wrong with AppleWorks under Rosetta?
See below
Attachment converted:
AppleWorks, in it's prior incarnation as ClarisWorks Office, was
MLP $99.
Shortly after Apple re-assimilated Claris, in late 1998?, they
released it as AppleWorks. The original street price was around $89.
Sorry, my memory fails me. It was the operating system.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:56
On Jun 11, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Dan wrote:
At 6:52 PM -0400 6/11/2009, John Callahan wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 6:43 PM, Dan wrote:
At 5:36 PM -0400 6/11/2009, John Callahan wrote:
The one application that comes to mind is AppleWorks
What's wrong with AppleWorks under Rosetta?
See
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Dan wrote:
(as I recall) six hundred dollars for AppleWorks
AppleWorks, in it's prior incarnation as ClarisWorks Office, was MLP
$99.
Back when it was an Apple II product Appleworks sold for about $279 or
so, at its *most* expensive. My Applewriter II box
On Jun 11, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Bruce Johnson wrote:
On Jun 11, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Dan wrote:
(as I recall) six hundred dollars for AppleWorks
AppleWorks, in it's prior incarnation as ClarisWorks Office, was MLP
$99.
Back when it was an Apple II product Appleworks sold for about $279 or
At 7:40 PM -0400 6/11/2009, John Callahan wrote:
Sorry about that, it was meant to illustrate the fact that my Intel
iMac will not support AppleWorks 6.
AppleWorks 6 runs just fine on any x86 Mac, within Rosetta on Tiger or Leopard.
It should be noted that there are TWO releases of
Dan wrote:
At 3:32 PM -0500 6/11/2009, James E. Therrault wrote:
Maybe someone could come up with a mini Intel motherboard that would fit
into one of the PCI slots...
LOL. I would think it would be cheaper, easier, and more reliable to
just use a real x86 Mac or do a hacintosh...
I do have to say, even though a G5 computer won't run OS 10.6 it's still
good at many things like video editing. I have really no need to upgrade my
iMac G3, it's does a great job of a local file back up.
I'm even going to keep my hackintosh running 10.5 for a long while.
Stephen
On Thu, Jun
30 matches
Mail list logo
