On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 08:50 +0800, James Devenish wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > on Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 07:23:45AM +0800, Rod wrote: > > Steve says the soul of the Mac has always been the OS > > And the hardware its heart. > > Also, while there's been attention given to the fact that old PowerPC > apps will work on Mactel thanks to dynamic translation in Rosetta, what > happens the other way around? There are plenty of people who can't > replace all their hardware every three years. It's continual pain for me > that for most software, development for Mac OS 9 stopped several years > ago. So, the backward compatibility of Mactel software (i.e. ability to > run newer software on PowerPC Macs) is very much a concern for me.
I share your pain on that one, actually. I'm *still* maintaining seven MacOS 9 macs I can't get new software for and now have to buy 2/h hardware to replace. Fun, fun, fun. It looks like I'll be stuck with them for a while now, too. I would expect that it'll take much longer for PPC users to get "left behind" this way, compared to how fast MacOS 9 was dropped, though. It'll be MUCH easier for app developers to build for PPC and x86, where MacOS 9 required constant pain and compromises to maintain support for. > But to me, x86 architecture seems like a relic and is reminiscent of > some of Apple's 'cheap', disappointing hardware choices -- need I > mention the backward steps Apple took with its flaky CRT-style iMacs?! Yeah, the innards of the instruction set aren't too pretty. The rest of the architecture is fine these days though - modern x86 chipsets and CPUs have resolved most of the long standing problems. Even the instruction set has been helped over the worst of its uglyness. The only "major ugly" remaining is the BIOS, and we can hopefully be rid of that with EFI at some point - or, if we're really, really lucky, with OpenFirmware. Hmm... Apple entering the x86 market might - just might, it's along shot - help improve the x86 architecture as well. If they do use and make good quality, well tested BIOS/firmwares, motherboards, chipsets and drivers, they'll still be able to maintain their "quality edge". SUN are shipping x86 gear (Opteron based) after all, and they're not exactly known for selling cheap and nasty garbage. > I guess Apple must have an assurance from Intel to design and deliver a > leading 64-bit chip in time for Mactel. My bet for the high end macs' CPUs is still AMD with the Opteron. For the lower end ones, it sounds like they'll use the new Pentium M so far. > But whatever CPU gets used in > Mactel, it seems to be given that it will be a standard Intel part -- so > that still leaves questions about DRM. Intel has said "there is no unannounced DRM" in their products. Yay. It doesn't sound like there's anything particularly really nasty in there from what's been dug up so far, but I share your general concerns. I'd be way more worried about DRM enabling chipsets than CPUs, though. The chipset really is the heart of the system, and if you're going to try to lock it down, that's where to do it. Intel already plans to release "with all new DRM!" video drivers. Yay. Somehow I don't expect Apple to use the onboard Intel Extreme[ly slow] video in their systems though. -- Craig Ringer
