That would be plainly insane. Apple's third party software vendors tend to be smaller, and would have a very hard time hopping from platform to platform. Even some big ones have not completed the OS X transition, and you're talking about going to x86 and back?
Apple made the 68k->PPC transition look so easy in '94 that people with only a passing interest in Apple think PPC->x86->PPC is a slam dunk!;)
One thing you're forgetting is the NeXT basically failed.
Umm... Sold to Apple for $400M? I hope my next venture fails like that...
Steve Jobs was lucky he still had pull with his old company (Apple Computer) and was able to convince them to pay to bring NeXT (and himself) back on board. NeXT floundered because it got into the x86 space... let's hope Apple knows better.
Apple could make a very nice transition to Opteron/Athlon64. The should do a G4 emulator, allowing acceptable (if not barnburning) performance for PPC executables, just as they did to facilitate the 68k->PPC transition. The native apps would of course scream - and Apple could immediately offer 4-CPU systems, which it has never had.
It wouldn't work. The 68k->PPC transition had PPCs emulating 68k faster than 68k could run within a year! This is not possible with x86, especially with the arrival of the PPC 970.
"What a concept! More than one person logged on to a machine at the same time, running apps in thier own space... Amazing! What will they think of next?"
Possibly remote log-on to a machine and concurrent use by many more than 2 users? Been around for decades on UNIX and Linux already.
The Registry itself represents a fundamental difference in the way programs are supposed to run, which I think gives them a percieved performance boost.
Another big difference is the fact that all the graphics and GUI for Windows is in the kernel space (for speed), but keeping them apart like the Mac does offers better stability (for obvious reasons).
I have one concern about the piles (though I like the idea): how does the Terminal (ls, cp, scp etc...) interpret those piles? As dirs? Or as a loose bunch of files?
My guess is that they come across as just a list of names. Most UNIX commands like the ones you just listed take multiple filenames as input. In fact, when you put in something like 'cp *.jpg,' the wildcard is expanded to give the entire list of.jpg files before it is acted upon by the cp command since you probably don't have just ONE file called "*.jpg"
So this feature is much akin to the 'ol M$ binder feature in MS-Office
Nope.
That M$ binder crap is more related to something known as "folder actions" which is an entirely-different and ancient (yet more flexible) pre-OSX Apple thing from years ago.
"Piles" is simply the ability to stack your icons on top of each other (from an oblique-view) and move them around together with one click. Also you get the ability to mouse over the pile of icons and have them levitate away from each other in an accordian fashion so you can pick out the one[s] you want to do some sort of action to (like open, copy, or print).
Price Will Come Down...
on
LCD Price Fixing?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
To be fair, Intel was already there with 32-bit chips, just M$ had to change all its 16-bit code and update its OS. This time it looks like the positions are reversed (unless Itanium ever takes off).
Well, actually we can. Areas around cities tend to be several degrees warmer than the surrounding areas. This is called the urban heat island effect. If we can affect temperature on a local level, why is it so outlandish to think we can do it on a global one?
For the same reason you can have a "rural heat campfire effect" around a pile of burning leaves and still not believe it contributes to "Global Warming"(tm). The question isn't a matter of kind, but degree. And the degree cannot be proved with any certainty; if it could we wouldn't be having this dicussion.
Apple doesn't have enough resources to split their development between 32-bit and 64-bit versions of their hardware and software. That means when Apple goes 64-bit, they are probably going to go whole-hog 64-bit as quickly as they can (if not instantaneously).
Consider:
Apple spends a lot of time and money and wastes a lot of goodwill doing "680X0->PPC II" by going to X86.
Apple chooses "wrong" and goes with Itanium instead of Opteron.
Apple chooses "wrong" and goes with the Opteron.
Apple either has to do another major switch to the "winning" x86 64-bit architecture, or just go back to the 64-bit 970 PPC.
So the safest bet is to eliminate risk, reduce costs, leverage legacy of a clean modern ISA, and just go with the logical next step: IBM 970.
I don't think that ppl want another PC OS, remember BeOS?
You hit the nail on the head. x86 architecture is where old OS's go to die. The only OS that "thrives" on x86 (other than the 800lb gorilla) is a "free" one. New commercial OS's on x86 come and go. But Sun, Apple, IBM, HP, and a host of others have done quite well for themselves (for many years) keeping their OS immune from M$ by having their own proprietary hardware solutions.
Al Snore, the Forrest Gump of the Left is about as popular on the Right as Dubya is with the Liberals. Way to inject the dealy venom of national politics into a company that's having enough problems just doing the "Lone Consumer OS/Computer Against The Windows Juggarnaught" thing.
Al Gore is going to be an albatross around the neck of Apple. And before I get flamed, what I said for Gore goes double for ANY high-profile controversial political figure from the Government Sector.
[quote]With WindowsXP there is no need for Mac any more.[/quote]s/WindowsXP/Windows200/ s/Windows200 0/Windows NT/ s/Windows NT/Windows 98/ s/Windows 98/ Windows 95/ s/Windows 95/Windows 3.1/ s/Windows 3.1/Windows 3.0/ s/Windows 3.0/Windows 2.0/ s/Windows 2.0/Windows 1.0/
It's good to have a dream.
Does this mean...
on
RMS Turns 50
·
· Score: 5, Funny
You're right. It's still a disservice to those students however. Microsoft's happens to be the toolset used, in some fashion, by 90% of the computing world. Ideally, all alternatives would be present at a university setting, and students would receive exposure to each of them.
The concepts that a college teaches apply to most all toolsets. Nobody will miss Microsoft P.C.'s in the admin area nor the computer labs, because by your own calculations, 90% of the students who own computers probably have their own Microsoft P.C. anyway.
Additionally, by the time these students leave the University setting, Windows 2000/XP will probably be something else entirely different anyway. The Windows P.C. is getting to be a locked-up proprietary box with more DRM and.NET and such. Neither of these concepts is important to understanding the fundamentals of programming, but are rather "features" that will be supplanted by even more "features" in a proprietary non-standard VMS-based system.
The curriculum would have to change every year according to Microsoft's marketing direction. Hardly something you want to teach... they'll have plenty of time to learn step-n-fetch-it Windows features in the real world, and that feature-set will be different depending on which Windows version they work on, and which IDE/API they end up using.
It's called an MSCE. If you're worried about not enough people are being prepared for their "Microsoft Future" in college, you obviously have no idea what college is about. It's a lot more than just a MicroSerf Trade-Skool.
Besides, have the kids learn MacOSX and Linux and then they will be prepared for what Windows will be trying to ape by the time they finally graduate.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing you're forgetting is the NeXT basically failed.
Umm... Sold to Apple for $400M? I hope my next venture fails like that...
Steve Jobs was lucky he still had pull with his old company (Apple Computer) and was able to convince them to pay to bring NeXT (and himself) back on board. NeXT floundered because it got into the x86 space... let's hope Apple knows better.
Probably you can contact this guy...
. html
http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/WorldWideWeb
There's a screenshot of the first WWW browser there for you to peruse...
"What a concept! More than one person logged on to a machine at the same time, running apps in thier own space... Amazing! What will they think of next?"
Possibly remote log-on to a machine and concurrent use by many more than 2 users? Been around for decades on UNIX and Linux already.
The Registry itself represents a fundamental difference in the way programs are supposed to run, which I think gives them a percieved performance boost.
Another big difference is the fact that all the graphics and GUI for Windows is in the kernel space (for speed), but keeping them apart like the Mac does offers better stability (for obvious reasons).
I have one concern about the piles (though I like the idea): how does the Terminal (ls, cp, scp etc...) interpret those piles? As dirs? Or as a loose bunch of files?
.jpg files before it is acted upon by the cp command since you probably don't have just ONE file called "*.jpg"
My guess is that they come across as just a list of names. Most UNIX commands like the ones you just listed take multiple filenames as input. In fact, when you put in something like 'cp *.jpg,' the wildcard is expanded to give the entire list of
So this feature is much akin to the 'ol M$ binder feature in MS-Office
Nope.
That M$ binder crap is more related to something known as "folder actions" which is an entirely-different and ancient (yet more flexible) pre-OSX Apple thing from years ago.
"Piles" is simply the ability to stack your icons on top of each other (from an oblique-view) and move them around together with one click. Also you get the ability to mouse over the pile of icons and have them levitate away from each other in an accordian fashion so you can pick out the one[s] you want to do some sort of action to (like open, copy, or print).
When the OLED's come out!
;)
...yeah... Comedy Gold!
Translation: Apple will always be our adorable little fuzzy niche market. We wuuuuuvvvv you!
And well they should, it's where Adobe and Microsoft (and many others) started out with their flagship applications.
Microsoft ensuring others can't sell their stuff by leveraging the OS monopoly is nothing new.
DRM is just the next logical step. And you can bet DRM will support MRM.
Until the end of 1995.
To be fair, Intel was already there with 32-bit chips, just M$ had to change all its 16-bit code and update its OS. This time it looks like the positions are reversed (unless Itanium ever takes off).
But why is it getting hotter? Well, here's one to send in to your local "science" reporter:;)
I think the "proposal" was to switch to ia64, not x86, although I think Itanium includes x86 capabilities...
Yes... why doesn't Apple strand itself on a desert island with it's new "friend," Intel?
You don't need to get even one eye open to see how dumb that is.
Consider:
- Apple spends a lot of time and money and wastes a lot of goodwill doing "680X0->PPC II" by going to X86.
- Apple chooses "wrong" and goes with Itanium instead of Opteron.
- Apple chooses "wrong" and goes with the Opteron.
- Apple either has to do another major switch to the "winning" x86 64-bit architecture, or just go back to the 64-bit 970 PPC.
So the safest bet is to eliminate risk, reduce costs, leverage legacy of a clean modern ISA, and just go with the logical next step: IBM 970.You're right... no need to get too excited. After these articles fade into the digital ether in a couple of days, no-one will know.
:: keeps fingers crossed
Al Snore, the Forrest Gump of the Left is about as popular on the Right as Dubya is with the Liberals. Way to inject the dealy venom of national politics into a company that's having enough problems just doing the "Lone Consumer OS/Computer Against The Windows Juggarnaught" thing.
Al Gore is going to be an albatross around the neck of Apple. And before I get flamed, what I said for Gore goes double for ANY high-profile controversial political figure from the Government Sector.
[quote]With WindowsXP there is no need for Mac any more.[/quote]s/WindowsXP/Windows200/0 0/Windows NT/
s/Windows20
s/Windows NT/Windows 98/
s/Windows 98/ Windows 95/
s/Windows 95/Windows 3.1/
s/Windows 3.1/Windows 3.0/
s/Windows 3.0/Windows 2.0/
s/Windows 2.0/Windows 1.0/
It's good to have a dream.
he's going to start voting Republican?
Additionally, by the time these students leave the University setting, Windows 2000/XP will probably be something else entirely different anyway. The Windows P.C. is getting to be a locked-up proprietary box with more DRM and
The curriculum would have to change every year according to Microsoft's marketing direction. Hardly something you want to teach... they'll have plenty of time to learn step-n-fetch-it Windows features in the real world, and that feature-set will be different depending on which Windows version they work on, and which IDE/API they end up using.
It's called an MSCE. If you're worried about not enough people are being prepared for their "Microsoft Future" in college, you obviously have no idea what college is about. It's a lot more than just a MicroSerf Trade-Skool.
Besides, have the kids learn MacOSX and Linux and then they will be prepared for what Windows will be trying to ape by the time they finally graduate.