Discussion:
Looking inside the Intel development system...
(too old to reply)
Alan Baker
2005-06-09 07:09:22 UTC
Permalink
<http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsI
D=14643>

Enjoy!
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling 4 feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect
if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
Randy Howard
2005-06-09 08:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
<http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsI
D=14643>
Images are pretty grainy, but are those two 32-bit PCI slots?
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 08:32:18 UTC
Permalink
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.

No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV. It's going to be just Jonathan Ive's ID
skills vs. Sony et al as far as hardware goes.

If indeed I am able to order kit from newegg and install 10.4 on it
then that will be major compensation tho. If I had to choose tho, I'd
stick with the former. Theoretically, a company with $6B in the bank
should be able to actually put together compelling hardware, but as of
now there is no longer anyone making their own PCs, strictly speaking,
any more.

Apple just threw in the towel.
Randy Howard
2005-06-09 08:37:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
Seeing Woz in the audience at the conference and not even being
acknowledged by SJ is enough evidence of that. He could have
at least had the class to mention him, along with the faked
"long term relationship" between Apple and Intel.
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple just threw in the towel.
Faced reality? Oh wait, what did I just say? Never mind.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 08:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple just threw in the towel.
Faced reality?
I used to be proud to point out that among the comp.sys.* hierarchy,
only Mac was left making their own way. ...not anymore.
Post by Randy Howard
Oh wait, what did I just say? Never mind.
What's good for Apple is not necessarily good for us.

Also, I take back my assertion that your G5 will be OK through the end
of the decade. Anything that runs fullscreen (workstation apps like
Maya), CAD, and games are going to disappear from the OS X platform, to
be available only from Windows.

This may or may not be a bad thing. Apple competing head-to-head in the
games space is silly, and the workstation niches are a losing battle.

The endgame for this is Sony-like hw ID and perhaps someday Apple
Computer Inc. becoming AppleSoft, Inc.

They've just put one foot in the grave now.
Randy Howard
2005-06-09 09:21:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple just threw in the towel.
Faced reality?
I used to be proud to point out that among the comp.sys.* hierarchy,
only Mac was left making their own way. ...not anymore.
It's a toaster oven business today, there is no glory in desktop and even
portable hardware, all the profit is on the software side once the shiny
paint wears off and the consumers realize that pretty packaging doesn't
do anything more for a computer than it does for donuts.

How Alienware can sell even one of those things is a mystery.

Commodity hardware has been boring for at least a decade. So I buy a
Powermac to play with something different, and get the rug pulled out
from under me < a month later.
Post by i***@mac.com
What's good for Apple is not necessarily good for us.
Who would argue with that? If a CEO likes something, it's pretty much
guaranteed to be bad for you.
Post by i***@mac.com
Also, I take back my assertion that your G5 will be OK through the end
of the decade.
I knew it as soon as the dashboard app popped up the news about Intel
in the keynote and he laughed it off.
Post by i***@mac.com
Anything that runs fullscreen (workstation apps like Maya),
That's a cool package, but I have no use for it, so I'll get over it.
Post by i***@mac.com
CAD, and games are going to disappear from the OS X platform, to
be available only from Windows.
I hope the folks at Trolltech are paying attention. This is a golden
opportunity for them, and for end users on Macs if they succeed.
Post by i***@mac.com
This may or may not be a bad thing. Apple competing head-to-head in the
games space is silly, and the workstation niches are a losing battle.
Yeah.
Post by i***@mac.com
The endgame for this is Sony-like hw ID and perhaps someday Apple
Computer Inc. becoming AppleSoft, Inc.
Well, they could be Apple Media Distributors. :-)
Post by i***@mac.com
They've just put one foot in the grave now.
Time will tell. Longhorn being a flop would help, but there is too
much marketing muscle over there. All those 500,000 mac developers
better get busy writing Windows virus and spyware before it's too
late. (half joking)
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 09:54:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple just threw in the towel.
Faced reality?
I used to be proud to point out that among the comp.sys.* hierarchy,
only Mac was left making their own way. ...not anymore.
It's a toaster oven business today, there is no glory in desktop and even
portable hardware, all the profit is on the software side once the shiny
paint wears off and the consumers realize that pretty packaging doesn't
do anything more for a computer than it does for donuts.
How Alienware can sell even one of those things is a mystery.
Agreed. But then again why people spend big bucks for wheel rims is a
mystery to me too.

With computer hardware, it's possible to make a single push that might
prove successful, eg. the Apple II, Amiga 1000, Atari 800, TRS-80 Model
I/III. The 2nd act is always the even trickier bit.

Apple was courting disaster with the Mac, but lucked out with desktop
publishing establishing a rationale for a Mac purchase.

Apple could continue bumblefucking around with PPC, or even try to
establish a new platform on something else, but it has a duty to its
shareholders to maximize the profits coming in, and Apple has the
choice of competing with Dell's 18% gross margins or going after
Micorsoft's 95% margins.
Post by Randy Howard
Commodity hardware has been boring for at least a decade. So I buy a
Powermac to play with something different, and get the rug pulled out
from under me < a month later.
Odd that. But you'll still get first-class support from Apple for at
least the next 5 years though.

The x86 hardware itself isn't going to be that different, or better,
than your dual 2.0, so all you'll be missing out on is present ISVs
like Maya perhaps moving their stuff to Windows-only after 2007, which
may have happened anyway w/o the move to x86, or may not happen at all
even with it.

Plus you can be somewhat satisfied that the dual 2.0 for $2000/$1000
resale value is a better deal (more CPU oomph, better expandability)
than Apple's 3.6Ghz developer P4 for $1500 and no resale value. You
still have the price/performance Mac, and arguably PC, available today.

Things would actually be worse for you from a resale standpoint had
Apple really knocked out either a Cell workstation like what IBMs doing
or even just gone with PCIe... that REALLY sucks to fall back a bus
generation a month after buying... I had that happen in 1999, when the
G4s came out 2 months after I got the last G3.
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
CAD, and games are going to disappear from the OS X platform, to
be available only from Windows.
I hope the folks at Trolltech are paying attention. This is a golden
opportunity for them, and for end users on Macs if they succeed.
hmm, good point. Maybe VMs and compatibility libraries will supercede
proprietary APIs. I've always said I'd rather be locked into
proprietary hw than proprietary API.
Randy Howard
2005-06-09 11:04:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
How Alienware can sell even one of those things is a mystery.
Agreed. But then again why people spend big bucks for wheel rims is a
mystery to me too.
No argument there.
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple was courting disaster with the Mac, but lucked out with desktop
publishing establishing a rationale for a Mac purchase.
Maybe OSS will keep these old boxes alive. I don't have a feel yet for
how many Mac users are heavily involved in open source relative to the
installed base.
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple could continue bumblefucking around with PPC, or even try to
establish a new platform on something else, but it has a duty to its
shareholders to maximize the profits coming in, and Apple has the
choice of competing with Dell's 18% gross margins or going after
Micorsoft's 95% margins.
Yes, but if they feel that "responsibility", it should have kicked in
years ago. Maybe they should get Aqua ported over to Windows and license
it to Microsoft for Longhorn. :-)

Sorry, I know that makes some of these folks twitch, couldn't resist.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
Commodity hardware has been boring for at least a decade. So I buy a
Powermac to play with something different, and get the rug pulled out
from under me < a month later.
Odd that. But you'll still get first-class support from Apple for at
least the next 5 years though.
As long as they keep feature-for-feature compatible with OS X between
the new and old platforms, that'll be a miracle. I wonder how many
PPC updates I'll be getting out of Adobe for the spanking new Photoshop
I just bought for it. Grrrrr.
Post by i***@mac.com
Plus you can be somewhat satisfied that the dual 2.0 for $2000/$1000
resale value is a better deal (more CPU oomph, better expandability)
than Apple's 3.6Ghz developer P4 for $1500 and no resale value. You
still have the price/performance Mac, and arguably PC, available today.
You can get a lot more performance out of current PC systems, I can feel
it even when flipping back and forth between my 3-yr-old Dell and the
Mac. I know that'a anathema here, but it's true.

of course installing Yellow Dog on this guy would probably be a lot
faster too. Lots of neat bells and whistles in OS X, but they come at
a price in terms of performance. This system is probably capable of
more work output, but OS X keeps it loaded down such that it doesn't
do much better than break even, if that.

It's pretty much like the difference in speed between Windows and
Linux on the same hardware. All the extra GUI stuff is a constant
tax on the machine, albeit worth it in a lot of cases.
Post by i***@mac.com
Things would actually be worse for you from a resale standpoint had
Apple really knocked out either a Cell workstation like what IBMs doing
or even just gone with PCIe... that REALLY sucks to fall back a bus
generation a month after buying... I had that happen in 1999, when the
G4s came out 2 months after I got the last G3.
I'm sure that'll happen next. Probably the "new PPC stuff" from the
keynote. Something to try and breathe some life into the high-end,
high-margin sales column during the draught.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
I hope the folks at Trolltech are paying attention. This is a golden
opportunity for them, and for end users on Macs if they succeed.
hmm, good point. Maybe VMs and compatibility libraries will supercede
proprietary APIs. I've always said I'd rather be locked into
proprietary hw than proprietary API.
If all GUI app vendors wrote to QT, they'd have windows, Linux, Mac for
PPC (and potentially Intel) sewn up with a recompile.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 12:07:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple could continue bumblefucking around with PPC, or even try to
establish a new platform on something else, but it has a duty to its
shareholders to maximize the profits coming in, and Apple has the
choice of competing with Dell's 18% gross margins or going after
Micorsoft's 95% margins.
Yes, but if they feel that "responsibility", it should have kicked in
years ago. Maybe they should get Aqua ported over to Windows and license
it to Microsoft for Longhorn. :-)
Transitions, at least successful ones, take time.

Steve put the company on the Mac course in 1984, this provided 5-10
years of forward momentum.
The move to PPC turned out to be more of a holding action, and once the
effort to produce a better OS than NT failed, Steve was brought back
in. Prior to that he already said what he was going to do, milk the Mac
for all it was worth until moving on to the next thing. Mission
accomplished there.

The first order of business was killing Classic and its byzantine
architectures and 68K dependencies, while grabbing some low-hanging
fruit with the iMac, iBook, PBG4s.
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
Commodity hardware has been boring for at least a decade. So I buy a
Powermac to play with something different, and get the rug pulled out
from under me < a month later.
Odd that. But you'll still get first-class support from Apple for at
least the next 5 years though.
As long as they keep feature-for-feature compatible with OS X between
the new and old platforms, that'll be a miracle. I wonder how many
PPC updates I'll be getting out of Adobe for the spanking new Photoshop
I just bought for it. Grrrrr.
Not any more than you'd get normally. I got PS7 in mid-2002, and it's
no longer supported.
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Plus you can be somewhat satisfied that the dual 2.0 for $2000/$1000
resale value is a better deal (more CPU oomph, better expandability)
than Apple's 3.6Ghz developer P4 for $1500 and no resale value. You
still have the price/performance Mac, and arguably PC, available today.
You can get a lot more performance out of current PC systems, I can feel
it even when flipping back and forth between my 3-yr-old Dell and the
Mac. I know that'a anathema here, but it's true.
I have a 2.6Ghz P4 and while it feels fast for some stuff it is not
across the board faster than my 800Mhz PBG4. I've used the G5s at
Apple's labs and the stores and while their speed didn't blow me away
on paper at least they should be better than any single P4.
Post by Randy Howard
of course installing Yellow Dog on this guy would probably be a lot
faster too. Lots of neat bells and whistles in OS X, but they come at
a price in terms of performance. This system is probably capable of
more work output, but OS X keeps it loaded down such that it doesn't
do much better than break even, if that.
Loaded down with what? Granted, the anandtech guys have a pretty good
expose on mach's inefficiencies wrt massively multithreading and other
kernel torture tests.
Post by Randy Howard
It's pretty much like the difference in speed between Windows and
Linux on the same hardware. All the extra GUI stuff is a constant
tax on the machine, albeit worth it in a lot of cases.
No it's not. The GUI only composites what has changed on the screen.
You're free to boot to the CLI to confirm this, btw.
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
I hope the folks at Trolltech are paying attention. This is a golden
opportunity for them, and for end users on Macs if they succeed.
hmm, good point. Maybe VMs and compatibility libraries will supercede
proprietary APIs. I've always said I'd rather be locked into
proprietary hw than proprietary API.
If all GUI app vendors wrote to QT, they'd have windows, Linux, Mac for
PPC (and potentially Intel) sewn up with a recompile.
I'm also interested in Javascript and browser-hosted apps. A lot of the
stuff I write could and should live in a browser.
s***@gmail.com
2005-06-09 14:15:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple just threw in the towel.
Faced reality?
I used to be proud to point out that among the comp.sys.* hierarchy,
only Mac was left making their own way. ...not anymore.
It's a toaster oven business today, there is no glory in desktop and even
portable hardware, all the profit is on the software side once the shiny
paint wears off and the consumers realize that pretty packaging doesn't
do anything more for a computer than it does for donuts.
How Alienware can sell even one of those things is a mystery.
Commodity hardware has been boring for at least a decade. So I buy a
Powermac to play with something different, and get the rug pulled out
from under me < a month later.
You know, I had the same feeling, but then, putting more thought into
it, it really doesn't affect me all that much. Stuff I run on my Dual
2, doesn't run slower today than it did say a month ago. I don't see
any massive speed advantages to the Intel family over my Dual 2, so my
PowerMac will chug along just fine and do everything I need it to do
for a long while...

Here's the problem though. Let's say I need to upgrade (for whatever
reason), and a PPC Mac isn't available, I would also have to upgrade a
ton of my software. I doubt it would be feasible to run the current
Final Cut Studio version through Rosetta. Never mind Photoshop, etc.

That's a real kick in the pants as far as I'm concerned.
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
What's good for Apple is not necessarily good for us.
Who would argue with that? If a CEO likes something, it's pretty much
guaranteed to be bad for you.
Post by i***@mac.com
Also, I take back my assertion that your G5 will be OK through the end
of the decade.
I knew it as soon as the dashboard app popped up the news about Intel
in the keynote and he laughed it off.
Post by i***@mac.com
Anything that runs fullscreen (workstation apps like Maya),
That's a cool package, but I have no use for it, so I'll get over it.
Post by i***@mac.com
CAD, and games are going to disappear from the OS X platform, to
be available only from Windows.
I hope the folks at Trolltech are paying attention. This is a golden
opportunity for them, and for end users on Macs if they succeed.
Post by i***@mac.com
This may or may not be a bad thing. Apple competing head-to-head in the
games space is silly, and the workstation niches are a losing battle.
Yeah.
Post by i***@mac.com
The endgame for this is Sony-like hw ID and perhaps someday Apple
Computer Inc. becoming AppleSoft, Inc.
Well, they could be Apple Media Distributors. :-)
Post by i***@mac.com
They've just put one foot in the grave now.
Time will tell. Longhorn being a flop would help, but there is too
much marketing muscle over there. All those 500,000 mac developers
better get busy writing Windows virus and spyware before it's too
late. (half joking)
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
Tobin Richard
2005-06-09 08:39:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV. It's going to be just Jonathan Ive's ID
skills vs. Sony et al as far as hardware goes.
Steve Jobs said several times in his keynote that the developer kits
are not products and will never be shipped to consumers. Developers
don't even get to keep them, they must be returned when Apple's Intel
machines start shipping.

I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.

Tobin.
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 08:59:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobin Richard
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV. It's going to be just Jonathan Ive's ID
skills vs. Sony et al as far as hardware goes.
Steve Jobs said several times in his keynote that the developer kits
are not products and will never be shipped to consumers. Developers
don't even get to keep them, they must be returned when Apple's Intel
machines start shipping.
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
your first para is of course true and Apple does indeed have the
resources to be the best Intel OEM around.

...woohoo...
Seeker1
2005-06-09 13:38:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
your first para is of course true and Apple does indeed have the
resources to be the best Intel OEM around.
...woohoo...
Does that *really* matter? As long as they are making different designs,
I do care about what's outside more than what's inside.

Which is not, as some people take to mean, that I care about pretty
shiny metal or Apple logos. Apple is not going to be "the same HW" in "a
different case".

I care about form factor, functionality, ergonomics, and features, all
of which I expect Apple HW to continue to differentiate itself in.

Copying their designs will become easier and more rampant, perhaps.
There were some things that only Apple could do design-wise, because
only they were using the smaller, cooler PowerPC (at that time)... that
isn't the case anymore.

But in the end, I thought for many the fact that now they'll be more
similar *inside* rather than outside is a GOOD thing, now we too can put
ice cream dispensers and anything else we want from PCland inside our
boxen....

I expect Apple to stay in the HW business and to continue to focus on
the same foci:
1) integrating hardware and software - so fine they will be an Intel OEM
but the only one that actually bothers to do this...
2) coming up with innovative and unusual designs - nothing prevents
Apple from getting out in front still and using the "risky" tech other
OEMs avoid in their mad rush to bog-standardness....

I do agree with you on one thing -- if somehow running OS X on your Dell
does become as easy as wiping your nose, they are going to have
problems, and their foot into becoming "Applesoft Inc." is firmly in
place.

I think their HW is going to be different, but not different enough to
persuade those who want their SW running on a $200 box.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 13:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobin Richard
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV. It's going to be just Jonathan Ive's ID
skills vs. Sony et al as far as hardware goes.
Steve Jobs said several times in his keynote that the developer kits
are not products and will never be shipped to consumers. Developers
don't even get to keep them, they must be returned when Apple's Intel
machines start shipping.
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Chad Irby
2005-06-09 14:09:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 14:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them, system-architecturewise?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Chad Irby
2005-06-09 14:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them, system-architecturewise?
So, now that your original point got popped, you're changing from
"clever hardware designs" to system architecture?

That was one of the fastest goalpost shifts I've ever seen...
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 15:14:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them, system-architecturewise?
So, now that your original point got popped, you're changing from
"clever hardware designs" to system architecture?
We were talking about hardware designs as in "system architecture".
Afterall the point was about the design that would be affected by the
switch to Intel CPUs.
Post by Chad Irby
That was one of the fastest goalpost shifts I've ever seen...
You just didn't get the point. That can happen.

It's up to you now. You can make this a discussion about semantics ("Can
the term "hardware design" refer to "system architecture" or not) or you
can tell me which of Apple's hardware designs were clever in the past.

If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Chad Irby
2005-06-09 17:04:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware
designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them, system-architecturewise?
So, now that your original point got popped, you're changing from
"clever hardware designs" to system architecture?
We were talking about hardware designs as in "system architecture".
No, we weren't. We were talking about the whole machine.

System architecture is a whole different beast.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Afterall the point was about the design that would be affected by the
switch to Intel CPUs.
Post by Chad Irby
That was one of the fastest goalpost shifts I've ever seen...
You just didn't get the point. That can happen.
Then try to keep your argument in one line, instead of trying to change
it.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
It's up to you now. You can make this a discussion about semantics ("Can
the term "hardware design" refer to "system architecture" or not)
Not in the sense that people have been using "system architecture" for
pretty much the whole history of computers.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
or you
can tell me which of Apple's hardware designs were clever in the past.
...a *partial* list of which is above, and which you tried to dodge by
changing terms...
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
NashtOn
2005-06-09 21:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them, system-architecturewise?
So, now that your original point got popped, you're changing from
"clever hardware designs" to system architecture?
We were talking about hardware designs as in "system architecture".
No, we weren't. We were talking about the whole machine.
System architecture is a whole different beast.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Afterall the point was about the design that would be affected by the
switch to Intel CPUs.
Post by Chad Irby
That was one of the fastest goalpost shifts I've ever seen...
You just didn't get the point. That can happen.
Then try to keep your argument in one line, instead of trying to change
it.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
It's up to you now. You can make this a discussion about semantics ("Can
the term "hardware design" refer to "system architecture" or not)
Not in the sense that people have been using "system architecture" for
pretty much the whole history of computers.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
or you
can tell me which of Apple's hardware designs were clever in the past.
...a *partial* list of which is above, and which you tried to dodge by
changing terms...
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
Note, no response from Chaddy.

Nicolas
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 21:29:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by NashtOn
Note, no response from Chaddy.
I think for him it was a competition.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Elizabot v2.0.2
2005-06-09 22:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by NashtOn
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them, system-architecturewise?
So, now that your original point got popped, you're changing from
"clever hardware designs" to system architecture?
We were talking about hardware designs as in "system architecture".
No, we weren't. We were talking about the whole machine.
System architecture is a whole different beast.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Afterall the point was about the design that would be affected by the
switch to Intel CPUs.
Post by Chad Irby
That was one of the fastest goalpost shifts I've ever seen...
You just didn't get the point. That can happen.
Then try to keep your argument in one line, instead of trying to
change it.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
It's up to you now. You can make this a discussion about semantics ("Can
the term "hardware design" refer to "system architecture" or not)
Not in the sense that people have been using "system architecture" for
pretty much the whole history of computers.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
or you
can tell me which of Apple's hardware designs were clever in the past.
...a *partial* list of which is above, and which you tried to dodge by
changing terms...
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
Note, no response from Chaddy.
Nicolas
"Chaddy" is probably still out and about. He hasn't responded to other
posts yet either.

What's the matter? Did you have a stressful day at the mall, Nicky?
--
I have special mutant powers. My test results are here:
Loading Image...
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 22:17:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elizabot v2.0.2
Post by NashtOn
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
Note, no response from Chaddy.
Nicolas
"Chaddy" is probably still out and about. He hasn't responded to other
posts yet either.
What's the matter? Did you have a stressful day at the mall, Nicky?
I think his point was that "Chaddy" did post, but did not respond.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Chad Irby
2005-06-09 22:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Elizabot v2.0.2
Post by NashtOn
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
Note, no response from Chaddy.
Nicolas
"Chaddy" is probably still out and about. He hasn't responded to other
posts yet either.
What's the matter? Did you have a stressful day at the mall, Nicky?
I think his point was that "Chaddy" did post, but did not respond.
I just got back, the the part I didn't respond to was the goalpost
shifting.

Again.
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 22:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Elizabot v2.0.2
Post by NashtOn
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond,
because I'm not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
Note, no response from Chaddy.
Nicolas
"Chaddy" is probably still out and about. He hasn't responded to other
posts yet either.
What's the matter? Did you have a stressful day at the mall, Nicky?
I think his point was that "Chaddy" did post, but did not respond.
I just got back, the the part I didn't respond to was the goalpost
shifting.
Again.
Actually, the "goalpost shifting" was the only thing you talked about.
Since you and I disagree over whether I wanted an answer to my question
or not, I think this is a moot point.

You did not, however, respond to my question, the question you claim I
did not ask even after I clarified that I did.

And that is, I think, what Nick meant when he said that you did not
respond.

Clearer now?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Nasht0n
2005-06-10 00:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elizabot v2.0.2
Post by NashtOn
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them,
system-architecturewise?
So, now that your original point got popped, you're changing from
"clever hardware designs" to system architecture?
We were talking about hardware designs as in "system architecture".
No, we weren't. We were talking about the whole machine.
System architecture is a whole different beast.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Afterall the point was about the design that would be affected by the
switch to Intel CPUs.
Post by Chad Irby
That was one of the fastest goalpost shifts I've ever seen...
You just didn't get the point. That can happen.
Then try to keep your argument in one line, instead of trying to
change it.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
It's up to you now. You can make this a discussion about semantics ("Can
the term "hardware design" refer to "system architecture" or not)
Not in the sense that people have been using "system architecture"
for pretty much the whole history of computers.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
or you
can tell me which of Apple's hardware designs were clever in the past.
...a *partial* list of which is above, and which you tried to dodge
by changing terms...
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
Note, no response from Chaddy.
Nicolas
"Chaddy" is probably still out and about. He hasn't responded to other
posts yet either.
What's the matter? Did you have a stressful day at the mall, Nicky?
You're a scary little bitch. Reach for the Premarin.

Nicolas
Elizabot v2.0.2
2005-06-10 07:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nasht0n
Post by Elizabot v2.0.2
Post by NashtOn
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Besides the Cube, the Mini, the iPod, the original Mac 128, the Newton,
the Apple II...
What was so particularly "clever" about them,
system-architecturewise?
So, now that your original point got popped, you're changing from
"clever hardware designs" to system architecture?
We were talking about hardware designs as in "system architecture".
No, we weren't. We were talking about the whole machine.
System architecture is a whole different beast.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Afterall the point was about the design that would be affected by the
switch to Intel CPUs.
Post by Chad Irby
That was one of the fastest goalpost shifts I've ever seen...
You just didn't get the point. That can happen.
Then try to keep your argument in one line, instead of trying to
change it.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
It's up to you now. You can make this a discussion about semantics ("Can
the term "hardware design" refer to "system architecture" or not)
Not in the sense that people have been using "system architecture"
for pretty much the whole history of computers.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
or you
can tell me which of Apple's hardware designs were clever in the past.
...a *partial* list of which is above, and which you tried to dodge
by changing terms...
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
If you choose option 1, I will have no incentive to respond, because I'm
not interested in that particular subject.
Then don't try to change to it when you lose the other point.
Note, no response from Chaddy.
Nicolas
"Chaddy" is probably still out and about. He hasn't responded to other
posts yet either.
What's the matter? Did you have a stressful day at the mall, Nicky?
You're a scary little bitch. Reach for the Premarin.
Nicolas
BOOOOOO!!!! lol

Please quit projecting you and your wife's marital issues onto me. TIA.
--
I have special mutant powers. My test results are here:
http://elizabot.spymac.com/MutantPower.jpg
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 17:51:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Apple II, IIc, IIgs.

Macintosh, Mac Plus, II, IIcx, IIfx, LC, 660AV, 9500, 7500, 8500

iMac, B&W G3, XServe, G4 iMac, G5, G5 iMac.

Powerbook 100 (in conjunction with Sony), Duo, 540, PBG3, PBG4

Laserwriter, Newton MP100, eMate 300, iPod.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 17:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Apple II, IIc, IIgs.
Macintosh, Mac Plus, II, IIcx, IIfx, LC, 660AV, 9500, 7500, 8500
iMac, B&W G3, XServe, G4 iMac, G5, G5 iMac.
Powerbook 100 (in conjunction with Sony), Duo, 540, PBG3, PBG4
Laserwriter, Newton MP100, eMate 300, iPod.
And what, please, was so particularly clever in their designs when it
comes to the CPU?

The G5 mainboard had a certain cleverness, maybe. But the last G4 Power
Macs were rather not cleverly designed.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Chad Irby
2005-06-09 22:42:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Apple II, IIc, IIgs.
Macintosh, Mac Plus, II, IIcx, IIfx, LC, 660AV, 9500, 7500, 8500
iMac, B&W G3, XServe, G4 iMac, G5, G5 iMac.
Powerbook 100 (in conjunction with Sony), Duo, 540, PBG3, PBG4
Laserwriter, Newton MP100, eMate 300, iPod.
And what, please, was so particularly clever in their designs when it
comes to the CPU?
See, there he goes again.

He asks for clever designs, then when he's listed with more than a few
of them, starts asking about *other* things...
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
The G5 mainboard had a certain cleverness, maybe. But the last G4 Power
Macs were rather not cleverly designed.
So you're going from "design" cleverness to "motherboard" cleverness.

Are you going to start asking about "CPU connector" cleverness next?
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 23:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was particularly "clever", please?
Apple II, IIc, IIgs.
Macintosh, Mac Plus, II, IIcx, IIfx, LC, 660AV, 9500, 7500, 8500
iMac, B&W G3, XServe, G4 iMac, G5, G5 iMac.
Powerbook 100 (in conjunction with Sony), Duo, 540, PBG3, PBG4
Laserwriter, Newton MP100, eMate 300, iPod.
And what, please, was so particularly clever in their designs when it
comes to the CPU?
See, there he goes again.
Yes, still clarifying the same point.
Post by Chad Irby
He asks for clever designs, then when he's listed with more than a few
of them, starts asking about *other* things...
You actually believed that I, a Mac user, didn't know about Apple's
nice-looking computers and was genuinely asking about them rather than
elegant hardware designs at the system board level?

And even after I explained to you what I meant, you insist that it
cannot possibly be true?

Why?
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
The G5 mainboard had a certain cleverness, maybe. But the last G4 Power
Macs were rather not cleverly designed.
So you're going from "design" cleverness to "motherboard" cleverness.
Is there a particular reason why you did not quote "hardware design"
there? Because the original post spoke of "hardware design" and that was
the "design" I referred to.
Post by Chad Irby
Are you going to start asking about "CPU connector" cleverness next?
Perhaps. But I assume you won't have an answer and wouldn't believe that
I asked that anyway.

So what do you have to do with it?
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Steve Carroll
2005-06-10 00:06:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware
designs.
Which of Apple's designs was particularly "clever", please?
Apple II, IIc, IIgs.
Macintosh, Mac Plus, II, IIcx, IIfx, LC, 660AV, 9500, 7500, 8500
iMac, B&W G3, XServe, G4 iMac, G5, G5 iMac.
Powerbook 100 (in conjunction with Sony), Duo, 540, PBG3, PBG4
Laserwriter, Newton MP100, eMate 300, iPod.
And what, please, was so particularly clever in their designs when it
comes to the CPU?
See, there he goes again.
Yes, still clarifying the same point.
Post by Chad Irby
He asks for clever designs, then when he's listed with more than a few
of them, starts asking about *other* things...
You actually believed that I, a Mac user, didn't know about Apple's
nice-looking computers and was genuinely asking about them rather than
elegant hardware designs at the system board level?
And even after I explained to you what I meant, you insist that it
cannot possibly be true?
Why?
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
The G5 mainboard had a certain cleverness, maybe. But the last G4 Power
Macs were rather not cleverly designed.
So you're going from "design" cleverness to "motherboard" cleverness.
Is there a particular reason why you did not quote "hardware design"
there?
C'mon, you know why he did it... he wanted to be able to accuse *you* of
moving the goalpost. He couldn't do that very easily with his shoulder
firmly planted on that sucker:)
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Because the original post spoke of "hardware design" and that was
the "design" I referred to.
Post by Chad Irby
Are you going to start asking about "CPU connector" cleverness next?
Perhaps. But I assume you won't have an answer and wouldn't believe that
I asked that anyway.
So what do you have to do with it?
--
"Why is proof needed?". The answer is simple: To support your claim." - Snit

Steve
Chad Irby
2005-06-10 01:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware
designs.
Which of Apple's designs was particularly "clever", please?
Snippage, to show where he tried to change the subject...
Post by Steve Carroll
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Chad Irby
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
The G5 mainboard had a certain cleverness, maybe. But the last G4 Power
Macs were rather not cleverly designed.
So you're going from "design" cleverness to "motherboard" cleverness.
Is there a particular reason why you did not quote "hardware design"
there?
C'mon, you know why he did it... he wanted to be able to accuse *you* of
moving the goalpost. He couldn't do that very easily with his shoulder
firmly planted on that sucker:)
...trying to keep it on the same field, as you well know.
--
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 23:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Apple II, IIc, IIgs.
Macintosh, Mac Plus, II, IIcx, IIfx, LC, 660AV, 9500, 7500, 8500
iMac, B&W G3, XServe, G4 iMac, G5, G5 iMac.
Powerbook 100 (in conjunction with Sony), Duo, 540, PBG3, PBG4
Laserwriter, Newton MP100, eMate 300, iPod.
And what, please, was so particularly clever in their designs when it
comes to the CPU?
*NOT* just the CPU, the CPU+chipset. Eg. Apple was able to more closely
integrate 802.11b into its products since it had better control of the
chipsets and driver architecture.

The Apple II had expansion slots and Woz's clever color hacks.

The IIc was a highpoint in system integration. Nothing like it on x86.

IIgs had uh, graphics and sound. 65816 had potential to be a bridge
like the 80386 but Apple dropped the ball. ADB was introduced on the
IIgs too.

Macintosh: built in frame and audio buffers allowed Apple to make a
$500 COGS box that outperformed anything.

Mac Plus: Onboard SCSI.

Mac II: Nubus, memory contoller, ADB

IIcx: (perhaps the IIci would have been a better example with its
onboard frame buffer).

IIfx: balls out personal workstation

LC: good cost-reduction on 1987-era Mac technology.

660AV: integrated DSPs, sound/video processing

9500: Processor upgrade cards

7500, 8500: onboard sound & video in/out.
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
The G5 mainboard had a certain cleverness, maybe. But the last G4 Power
Macs were rather not cleverly designed.
"iMac, B&W G3, XServe, G4 iMac, G5, G5 iMac.
Powerbook 100 (in conjunction with Sony), Duo, 540, PBG3, PBG4"

funny, I didn't list the G4 PowerMac, did I? It was highly derivative
of the B&W G3 design.

The "New World" macs incorporated firewire target disk mode, net
booting, full USB (I remember often having to switch my USB keyboard to
PS2 to get it to work for the BIOS on PCs in the late 90s).

The above are examples of Apple doing good system integration of
proprietary chipsets to produce something better than what Wintel could
roll out.

Apple's laptops were of course the better examples of this effort. Only
in the last year have they started to fall off competitiveness with
Intel.
Tobin Richard
2005-06-09 23:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV. It's going to be just Jonathan Ive's ID
skills vs. Sony et al as far as hardware goes.
Steve Jobs said several times in his keynote that the developer kits
are not products and will never be shipped to consumers. Developers
don't even get to keep them, they must be returned when Apple's Intel
machines start shipping.
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Sorry, I should have been more specific.

What I meant when I wrote "clever" [1] was the overall design an "feel"
of Apple's machines. I think this is what imouttahere was talking about
when he mentioned the Lisa, Mac, etc.

What I find clever about Apple's designs is that anyone could have come
up with them but no one seems too. They get a real "Why don't other
manufactures do that?" response from people [2]. Talk the iMac G5 for
example: there isn't anything really amazing about its specs but I've
seen people in Apple stores who were surprised when the saw the back
panel and realised it was all one unit. The mini is another good
example, there are a lot of companies that _could_ make a machine that
small with similar specs but why don't they? Everyone I've shown a mini
to has commented that it's a clever idea [3].

Some of Apple's clever designs have had silly flaws in them though. The
iMac G4, for example, looks like a clever design until you need to put
it in your car and have to find the box it came in to move it safely.

Tobin.

[1] My idea of what is clever obviously doesn't match yours.
[2] From what I've seen.
[3] Or something similar.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 23:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tobin Richard
Post by Andrew J. Brehm
Post by Tobin Richard
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV. It's going to be just Jonathan Ive's ID
skills vs. Sony et al as far as hardware goes.
Steve Jobs said several times in his keynote that the developer kits
are not products and will never be shipped to consumers. Developers
don't even get to keep them, they must be returned when Apple's Intel
machines start shipping.
I don't think we'll ever see the end of Apple's clever hardware designs.
Which of Apple's designs was partiicularly "clever", please?
Sorry, I should have been more specific.
And I should have been less agressive. Sorry.
Post by Tobin Richard
What I meant when I wrote "clever" [1] was the overall design an "feel"
of Apple's machines. I think this is what imouttahere was talking about
when he mentioned the Lisa, Mac, etc.
Ok.
Post by Tobin Richard
What I find clever about Apple's designs is that anyone could have come
up with them but no one seems too. They get a real "Why don't other
manufactures do that?" response from people [2]. Talk the iMac G5 for
example: there isn't anything really amazing about its specs but I've
seen people in Apple stores who were surprised when the saw the back
panel and realised it was all one unit. The mini is another good
example, there are a lot of companies that _could_ make a machine that
small with similar specs but why don't they? Everyone I've shown a mini
to has commented that it's a clever idea [3].
It is.
Post by Tobin Richard
Some of Apple's clever designs have had silly flaws in them though. The
iMac G4, for example, looks like a clever design until you need to put
it in your car and have to find the box it came in to move it safely.
Good point. The iMac G5 seems more up to it.
Post by Tobin Richard
Tobin.
[1] My idea of what is clever obviously doesn't match yours.
We were talking about different levels. Because of all the Intel vs
PowerPC discussions I assumed you were talking about the architectural
level.
Post by Tobin Richard
[2] From what I've seen.
[3] Or something similar.
Thanks for clarifying.
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
Joe Ragosta
2005-06-09 11:59:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?

Amazing the lengths you Mac bashers will go to.
NashtOn
2005-06-09 12:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?
They're discussing.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Amazing the lengths you Mac bashers will go to.
There, there, Ragosta. It'll be alright;)

Nicolas
TravelinMan
2005-06-09 13:44:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by NashtOn
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?
They're discussing.
Read imouttahere's statement again. Looks like a conclusion to me.
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 12:14:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?
No, I'm concluding that Apple will become an Intel OEM on the model of
Sony, if things work out well.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Amazing the lengths you Mac bashers will go to.
The Mac II was a fucking incredible PC, 5-6 years ahead of x86, if not
more.

How the hell is Apple going to leapfrog 5-6 years ahead of Intel when
it is relying on Intel for its chipsets and CPUs?

I'm not saying going x86 is going to result in worse machines than what
Apple would have had it stuck with Freescale and IBM (lord knows I *do*
like bashing Freescale for their shitty embedded CPUs), clearly going
x86 is the best move Apple has available to it.

But Apple won its position in this industry by being Apple *Computer*,
Inc, not AppleSoft.

As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Joe Ragosta
2005-06-09 12:30:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?
No, I'm concluding that Apple will become an Intel OEM on the model of
Sony, if things work out well.
If Apple stops designing their own OS and application software, that
might become true. Fortunately, that's not going to happen.

Unless you think that the only thing different about Macs is the
hardware.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Amazing the lengths you Mac bashers will go to.
The Mac II was a fucking incredible PC, 5-6 years ahead of x86, if not
more.
How the hell is Apple going to leapfrog 5-6 years ahead of Intel when
it is relying on Intel for its chipsets and CPUs?
Apple doesn't have to leapfrog Intel. They're not competing with Intel.

They're competing with other computer manufacturers - and OS X is at
least 5 years ahead of Windows.
Post by i***@mac.com
I'm not saying going x86 is going to result in worse machines than what
Apple would have had it stuck with Freescale and IBM (lord knows I *do*
like bashing Freescale for their shitty embedded CPUs), clearly going
x86 is the best move Apple has available to it.
But Apple won its position in this industry by being Apple *Computer*,
Inc, not AppleSoft.
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
The OS is what matters. Leaving that out and then saying there's no
difference is absurd.
Andrew J. Brehm
2005-06-09 13:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?
No, I'm concluding that Apple will become an Intel OEM on the model of
Sony, if things work out well.
If Apple stops designing their own OS and application software, that
might become true. Fortunately, that's not going to happen.
Unless you think that the only thing different about Macs is the
hardware.
I think Apple are more comparable to Sun. They also make x86 boxen which
they sell with their own OS but which can run Linux or Windows.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Amazing the lengths you Mac bashers will go to.
The Mac II was a fucking incredible PC, 5-6 years ahead of x86, if not
more.
How the hell is Apple going to leapfrog 5-6 years ahead of Intel when
it is relying on Intel for its chipsets and CPUs?
Apple doesn't have to leapfrog Intel. They're not competing with Intel.
Not any more.
Post by Joe Ragosta
They're competing with other computer manufacturers - and OS X is at
least 5 years ahead of Windows.
Well...
--
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 17:59:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?
No, I'm concluding that Apple will become an Intel OEM on the model of
Sony, if things work out well.
If Apple stops designing their own OS and application software, that
might become true. Fortunately, that's not going to happen.
Unless you think that the only thing different about Macs is the
hardware.
I think Microsoft will continually narrow the gap, yes.

This is more of an emotional argument than a logical one, since for the
past decade PPC has not been the magic fairy dust that makes Apple's
stuff 100x better than Wintel.

Except the G5 tower. That was a pretty cool shot across Intel's bow.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Amazing the lengths you Mac bashers will go to.
The Mac II was a fucking incredible PC, 5-6 years ahead of x86, if not
more.
How the hell is Apple going to leapfrog 5-6 years ahead of Intel when
it is relying on Intel for its chipsets and CPUs?
Apple doesn't have to leapfrog Intel. They're not competing with Intel.
Actually, they're competing with Wintel, so they've just lost
(notionally) half of their differentiation.
Post by Joe Ragosta
They're competing with other computer manufacturers - and OS X is at
least 5 years ahead of Windows.
This is a good point to the extent it is true. If I had to put a number
on it I'd say OS X is 1-2 years ahead of Windows tho, and the gap is
shrinking not growing.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
I'm not saying going x86 is going to result in worse machines than what
Apple would have had it stuck with Freescale and IBM (lord knows I *do*
like bashing Freescale for their shitty embedded CPUs), clearly going
x86 is the best move Apple has available to it.
But Apple won its position in this industry by being Apple *Computer*,
Inc, not AppleSoft.
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
The OS is what matters. Leaving that out and then saying there's no
difference is absurd.
It's going to be a curious question to see how much the hw
differentiation mattered. I agree the software matters more, so the
move should be a net gain for Apple in the medium term, I just think
over the long term the network effect of Windows will triumph, since
Windows will always rip off OS X, and ripping off software is much
easier than ripping off hardware.
Seeker1
2005-06-09 13:26:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.

The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...

That said, I thought we all agreed that the RELEASE OS X(I) will
probably be different from what developers are getting, as probably will
the release ICBMs. Between now and then, I'm still suspecting there will
be some form of 'lockdown' too.

Again, I wouldn't conclude, for example, that they will use a Phoenix
BIOS because the developer rig does. It looks like Apple is debating
internally whether to continue some implementation of Open Firmware for
the release machines, or go to EFI. Apparently all the ICBMs will be
using one or the other by 2007.
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 19:59:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.

Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
Post by Seeker1
Again, I wouldn't conclude, for example, that they will use a Phoenix
BIOS because the developer rig does. It looks like Apple is debating
internally whether to continue some implementation of Open Firmware for
the release machines, or go to EFI. Apparently all the ICBMs will be
using one or the other by 2007.
I would be surprised if Apple doesn't go EFI instead of keeping the
Phoenix BIOS. EFI's prolly superior to OF. OF never really did much for
me, tho it was, I guess, much better than real-mode BIOS.

The transition note says OF *is* going away, tho.
Lloyd Parsons
2005-06-09 20:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
Why?

I don't think that is a function of the cpu.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Again, I wouldn't conclude, for example, that they will use a Phoenix
BIOS because the developer rig does. It looks like Apple is debating
internally whether to continue some implementation of Open Firmware for
the release machines, or go to EFI. Apparently all the ICBMs will be
using one or the other by 2007.
I would be surprised if Apple doesn't go EFI instead of keeping the
Phoenix BIOS. EFI's prolly superior to OF. OF never really did much for
me, tho it was, I guess, much better than real-mode BIOS.
The transition note says OF *is* going away, tho.
TravelinMan
2005-06-09 20:17:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
Why not? Is there something magical about Intel chips that prevents
Apple from changing motherboard designs?
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
Why? Other than your pessimism about EVERYTHING related to Apple, of
course.
i***@mac.com
2005-06-09 23:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by TravelinMan
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
Why not? Is there something magical about Intel chips that prevents
Apple from changing motherboard designs?
Yes. Intel is going to provide the chipset too. Apple collaborated on
this with IBM for the G5 UniNorth effort, but Intel provides a one-stop
shop for doing system integration. It's not just the CPU.

Depending on how compatible it wishes to remain with Windows (ie like
how Schiller said not do anything to prevent Windows from running) it
will be stuck with standard x86 architecture, but it is indeed free to
hang things off various buses if it chooses to do so since it does
control the driver architecture.

Remains to be seen how important Windows compatibility is to Apple.
There are strong arguments to go either way with this; stay compatible
and you'll get more switchers and perhaps gain ground in the
workstation and games software availability, not to mention perhaps 10M
Tiger/Leopard paid licenses (that's $1B of pure profit), or break
compatibility and protect native API and hardware sales.
Post by TravelinMan
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
Why? Other than your pessimism about EVERYTHING related to Apple, of
course.
Based on the developer note stating they're going with a compatible HD
partition scheme and ditching OF. Doesn't bode well for firewire
booting.
StormDrain
2005-06-10 03:22:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by TravelinMan
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
Why not? Is there something magical about Intel chips that prevents
Apple from changing motherboard designs?
Yes. Intel is going to provide the chipset too. Apple collaborated on
this with IBM for the G5 UniNorth effort, but Intel provides a one-stop
shop for doing system integration. It's not just the CPU.
Depending on how compatible it wishes to remain with Windows (ie like
how Schiller said not do anything to prevent Windows from running) it
will be stuck with standard x86 architecture, but it is indeed free to
hang things off various buses if it chooses to do so since it does
control the driver architecture.
I don't see why windows compatibility is such an issue (necessity
maybe?) with you. I took Shiller's comment to mean Apple won't put in a
dongle simply designed to prevent Longshot from running. Apple will
probably take the best intel has to offer and design their own machines.
If MS can't keep up...well what else is new?
Post by i***@mac.com
Remains to be seen how important Windows compatibility is to Apple.
There are strong arguments to go either way with this; stay compatible
and you'll get more switchers and perhaps gain ground in the
workstation and games software availability, not to mention perhaps 10M
Tiger/Leopard paid licenses (that's $1B of pure profit), or break
compatibility and protect native API and hardware sales.
Post by TravelinMan
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
Why? Other than your pessimism about EVERYTHING related to Apple, of
course.
Based on the developer note stating they're going with a compatible HD
partition scheme and ditching OF. Doesn't bode well for firewire
booting.
--
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
i***@mac.com
2005-06-10 04:14:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by StormDrain
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by i***@mac.com
Depending on how compatible it wishes to remain with Windows (ie like
how Schiller said not do anything to prevent Windows from running) it
will be stuck with standard x86 architecture, but it is indeed free to
hang things off various buses if it chooses to do so since it does
control the driver architecture.
I don't see why windows compatibility is such an issue (necessity
maybe?) with you. I took Shiller's comment to mean Apple won't put in a
dongle simply designed to prevent Longshot from running. Apple will
probably take the best intel has to offer and design their own machines.
If MS can't keep up...well what else is new?
I've been alternating my computer purchases mac-pc-mac for a while now.
Java, web development, OpenGL, and PC games all require I have a modern
PC system.

With dual-core x86 and Intel's hardware-virtualization, it should be
possible for two installs to coexist on the same machine and run
simultaneously. Fucking incredible.
Post by StormDrain
From a wider strategic viewpoint, I think Apple courting the major
cross-platform big-bucks fullscreen workstation apps like Maya,
CAD/scientific etc. is going to be a losing game. A $100 XP Pro license
on top of a $1000 app pricetag is just noise.

Apple doesn't offer much to the fullscreen, custom-UI crowd that writes
workstation apps and games.

Surrendering these apps to Windows may or may not be wise, but it may
in fact be inevitable.

Ryan Gordon, the guy who ports UT to the Mac, said that he thinks Apple
should keep Windows OFF the platform or face loss of all game ports. I
agree with this but I also don't see a big loss should this happen. If
anything Apple should facilitate it, though I admit this is a rather
bizarre direction for an OEM to go.
Seeker1
2005-06-10 14:35:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple doesn't offer much to the fullscreen, custom-UI crowd that writes
workstation apps and games.
It depends. Will they now be able to get workstation-class GPUs into
ICBMs now or not? If they can, I think it's still a viable market for
them.

Giving up games isn't a big deal for Mac; it's never been a touted
strength. But giving up apps like Maya or CAD on a platform that's
always been touted for graphics and design seems like a strange
surrender. Even though, yes, due to constraints on both CPU and GPU, Mac
has definitely been losing in this area, *esp* in 3D design.
Post by i***@mac.com
Surrendering these apps to Windows may or may not be wise, but it may
in fact be inevitable.
Ryan Gordon, the guy who ports UT to the Mac, said that he thinks Apple
should keep Windows OFF the platform or face loss of all game ports. I
agree with this but I also don't see a big loss should this happen. If
anything Apple should facilitate it, though I admit this is a rather
bizarre direction for an OEM to go.
I wonder how this will shake out. Game devs will actually face longer
porting times for 2 years. Then the porting times will get shorter
because endian issues are gone. The game guys are saying about 30%
shorter. Nice, but that won't eclipse the 6 mos-1 yr wait time Mac games
usually face, nor is it likely to overcome devs tendency to avoid
porting due to the above factor.

Now, if DirectX was ported to Mac, the time could drop 70-90%, in fact
even companies other than Blizzard might start doing simultaneous
ports... but since I've heard discussion of this, I've wondered how it
would be even possible, as this is YANO proprietary Microsoft technology
and I sure as hell don't expect them letting this out of their treasure
chest, unless they are really moving gaming focus off to their own Xbox.

Interesting thing is, I actually wonder, if I can run PC games at native
speeds on a Mactel, would I really care if they're not Marklar ports? Is
it really worth fretting over a disappearing market of a handful of
titles that show up on Mac 6 mos to 1 yr later, versus being able to
play everything that's out there in PCland, at native speeds?

Just imagine - no more frenzied searching of macgamer to see whether
they will do the expansion pack or not... since mac game devs are
notorious for skipping them.

Geez, I keep thinking if I had these boxen a few years back, I wouldn't
have had to take a pass on Arcanum, which was never ported.
StormDrain
2005-06-10 14:59:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by StormDrain
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by i***@mac.com
Depending on how compatible it wishes to remain with Windows (ie like
how Schiller said not do anything to prevent Windows from running) it
will be stuck with standard x86 architecture, but it is indeed free to
hang things off various buses if it chooses to do so since it does
control the driver architecture.
I don't see why windows compatibility is such an issue (necessity
maybe?) with you. I took Shiller's comment to mean Apple won't put in a
dongle simply designed to prevent Longshot from running. Apple will
probably take the best intel has to offer and design their own machines.
If MS can't keep up...well what else is new?
I've been alternating my computer purchases mac-pc-mac for a while now.
Java, web development, OpenGL, and PC games all require I have a modern
PC system.
With dual-core x86 and Intel's hardware-virtualization, it should be
possible for two installs to coexist on the same machine and run
simultaneously. Fucking incredible.
Wow, now you're talking, LOL! with two of the thirty inch monitors...all
on a mini II. :)
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by StormDrain
From a wider strategic viewpoint, I think Apple courting the major
cross-platform big-bucks fullscreen workstation apps like Maya,
CAD/scientific etc. is going to be a losing game. A $100 XP Pro license
on top of a $1000 app pricetag is just noise.
Apple doesn't offer much to the fullscreen, custom-UI crowd that writes
workstation apps and games.
Surrendering these apps to Windows may or may not be wise, but it may
in fact be inevitable.
Ryan Gordon, the guy who ports UT to the Mac, said that he thinks Apple
should keep Windows OFF the platform or face loss of all game ports. I
agree with this but I also don't see a big loss should this happen. If
anything Apple should facilitate it, though I admit this is a rather
bizarre direction for an OEM to go.
Especially since Apple puts so much R&D into it's own OS.
--
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
ZnU
2005-06-09 21:30:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
There's absolutely no technical reason that couldn't be implemented.
Maybe it won't be in the first generation, but I bet we'll get it sooner
or later.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Again, I wouldn't conclude, for example, that they will use a Phoenix
BIOS because the developer rig does. It looks like Apple is debating
internally whether to continue some implementation of Open Firmware for
the release machines, or go to EFI. Apparently all the ICBMs will be
using one or the other by 2007.
I would be surprised if Apple doesn't go EFI instead of keeping the
Phoenix BIOS. EFI's prolly superior to OF. OF never really did much for
me, tho it was, I guess, much better than real-mode BIOS.
The transition note says OF *is* going away, tho.
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
Seeker1
2005-06-10 02:36:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
I disagree. They may now be able to do a subnotebook, something they
couldn't have done with the G5. (Granted, they could have done one with
the G4, but it would have been a quickly dead in the water one).

I do think people do need to look at what SJ emphasized -- they went
with Intel more for low power than for better performance. Low power
means designs with passive cooling... etc... you know the drill: freedom
to innovate.
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent. I still think Apple will make
the mobos for Apple Macs - out of mostly off the shelf components, but
the design will still be Apple's. That means they can put unusual extras
on them, like Target Disk Mode.
i***@mac.com
2005-06-10 02:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
I disagree. They may now be able to do a subnotebook, something they
couldn't have done with the G5. (Granted, they could have done one with
the G4, but it would have been a quickly dead in the water one).
I was talking about freedoms other Intel OEMs won't have, eg. the VAIO
T2

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000590040926/
Post by Seeker1
I do think people do need to look at what SJ emphasized -- they went
with Intel more for low power than for better performance. Low power
means designs with passive cooling... etc... you know the drill: freedom
to innovate.
I agree that Freescale was sucking the wang and not providing anything
for Apple to work with.

I'm just saying it's going to be rare for Apple to actually beat the
Wintel manufacturers at their own game.

Apple and Sony should just merge now, let Sony do the ID.
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
Post by Seeker1
I still think Apple will make
the mobos for Apple Macs - out of mostly off the shelf components, but
the design will still be Apple's. That means they can put unusual extras
on them, like Target Disk Mode.
We'll find out.
Joe Ragosta
2005-06-10 03:09:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
I disagree. They may now be able to do a subnotebook, something they
couldn't have done with the G5. (Granted, they could have done one with
the G4, but it would have been a quickly dead in the water one).
I was talking about freedoms other Intel OEMs won't have, eg. the VAIO
T2
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000590040926/
Post by Seeker1
I do think people do need to look at what SJ emphasized -- they went
with Intel more for low power than for better performance. Low power
means designs with passive cooling... etc... you know the drill: freedom
to innovate.
I agree that Freescale was sucking the wang and not providing anything
for Apple to work with.
I'm just saying it's going to be rare for Apple to actually beat the
Wintel manufacturers at their own game.
Except that Apple has a vastly superior OS.

If Apple's OS is no better, then Apple has no future. If Apple's OS _is_
better (which is the whole point of Mac advocacy), then you'll have
Apple competing on a level playing field.

Apple may actually have a better hardware position this way. How long
did it take after PC vendors introduced AGP before Apple had it? How
long for SATA? How long for PCIe? Since they'll be using the same
general chip sets, they should get those things right away - and there
won't be any hardware disadvantage.

It all comes down to the OS - where Apple wins big time.
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple and Sony should just merge now, let Sony do the ID.
That's one of your more inane suggestions.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
How would you know about target disk mode? Apple hasn't even discussed
i***@mac.com
2005-06-10 07:39:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
I'm just saying it's going to be rare for Apple to actually beat the
Wintel manufacturers at their own game.
Except that Apple has a vastly superior OS.
If Apple's OS is no better, then Apple has no future. If Apple's OS _is_
better (which is the whole point of Mac advocacy), then you'll have
Apple competing on a level playing field.
I wouldn't call it exactly level. Microsoft still owns the market, and
Apple will be a guest in its house.
Microsoft's income before taxes in the MRQ was nearly $4B.

Ballmer has probably been getting bored toying with the Linux partisans
and is looking forward to this latest challenge to MSFT's dominance.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Apple may actually have a better hardware position this way. How long
did it take after PC vendors introduced AGP before Apple had it?
About a year.
Post by Joe Ragosta
How long for SATA?
~6 months.
Post by Joe Ragosta
How long for PCIe?
Unknown.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Since they'll be using the same
general chip sets, they should get those things right away - and there
won't be any hardware disadvantage.
True, I agree 100%. Making their own stuff has been more of a net
liability than a net benefit, pretty much after the 2nd generation Macs
shipped in '95, or maybe when Intel first shipped AGP in 1998.
Post by Joe Ragosta
It all comes down to the OS - where Apple wins big time.
I agree a lot. XP vs. 10.4 on the same hardware is going to open
people's eyes I think. (I had thought Longhorn was going to do this,
but it is indeed possible that Apple will beat LH to market with their
own version of "Longhorn", Tiger.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple and Sony should just merge now, let Sony do the ID.
That's one of your more inane suggestions.
More of a joke, though I have always respected Sony's ID. Sony was
doing magnesium VAIO laptops way before Apple discovered titanium.
Sony's ultralite laptops are very nice, and their mainstream laptops
are pretty good, and their VAIO desktops had integrated DV and audio a
long time ago.

I can say I've liked Sony's design language more than Ive's, easily,
not that Sony's internal build quality has always matched Apple's.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
How would you know about target disk mode?
It's something Apple's going to have to spend some time on to get
working. It's possible Apple will be able to put it in, but it's not
clear yet.

This is not a developer-level issue so the developer note did not
discuss it.
Randy Howard
2005-06-10 08:02:23 UTC
Permalink
OT: What is the deal with "Joe" versus Travelinman? Is he suddenly
schizo, as he keeps going back and forth, being sockpuppeted, finally
gave up on trying to hide behind a pseudonym but forgot how to change
his identify in one or more newsreaders, or just so embarrassed about
his TM track-record that he's trying to distance himself from it?
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
If Apple's OS is no better, then Apple has no future. If Apple's OS _is_
better (which is the whole point of Mac advocacy), then you'll have
Apple competing on a level playing field.
I wouldn't call it exactly level. Microsoft still owns the market, and
Apple will be a guest in its house.
Nevermind that the "best product" (in technical terms) on the market
rarely, if ever wins in market share contests. Lots of great products
disappear, only to be supplanted by some cheap, less functional crap
with more marketing muscle and a lower price. The Walwart buyer
mentality has destroyed, or at least severely eroded all the great
innovation and product quality gains of the previous 100 years.
Post by i***@mac.com
Ballmer has probably been getting bored toying with the Linux partisans
Hardly. He's been flying all over the place trying to stave off Linux
large-scale deployments, and quite often failing. When he's not busy
doing his monkey-boy dance that is. (Judging from that panting, sweating
performance after hopping around on stage for about 20 seconds, a heart
attack is in the cards)
Post by i***@mac.com
and is looking forward to this latest challenge to MSFT's dominance.
It takes some Leica-quality rose-colored glasses to consider apple to
be a serious challenge to MSFT's dominance right now.

Sure, the OS is cool, the hardware is boring, unless your idea of
excitement is lots of holes in a chassis and acrylic.

The problem is there has to be something overwhelmingly compelling
about OS X to move people off of Windows, and it can't be what
Apple has been leading with on their website for the last month or
so. Dashboard is the first thing you see, and it's just not
exciting. They should be leading with security, security, security.
A list of every known virus from Windows should be on the home page,
with the words "Never detected on Tiger" scrolling down for hundreds
of lines. The next page could by a list of the thousands of known
spyware items, with the same text. etc, etc.

What pisses off MS desktop customers is not the lack of dashboard, or
spotlight, but fear of getting their drive fried by some kid in Romania
with a C compiler, and the apparent inability of MS to do anything
tangible to stop it, and its been going on for years.

On the server side, it's about price/performance, and that's why Linux
is doing so well replacing MS web servers, MS-SQL databases, Exchange
back-ends, etc. Their stuff is overpriced and under-wonderful.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
It all comes down to the OS - where Apple wins big time.
I agree a lot.
Apple could win "big time" with OS X, but only by putting it out on the
market in large quantities. They should be flooding the PC market with
it, even giving it away in some "evaluation, trial period" form, or
something like a Knoppix "live DVD" for PC customers to try it out and
get familiar with it. Of course, they have to write about 10,000
device drivers for it first. :-(
Post by i***@mac.com
XP vs. 10.4 on the same hardware is going to open people's eyes I think.
Yeah, all the people that will already buy a Mac. 10.4 won't run on
the same hardware that millions of people run XP on, it'll run on a tiny
fraction of them, the few that have hardware that OS X supports all of
properly, likely to be ONLY those that buy SCUDs unless a miracle happens
and peripheral vendors leap at the chance to implement drivers on
hardware that Apple won't officially support.
Post by i***@mac.com
(I had thought Longhorn was going to do this, but it is indeed possible
that Apple will beat LH to market with their own version of "Longhorn", Tiger.
I'm not sure what you mean by "going to do this" wrt LH??? What is LH
going to do, open people's eyes about XP?
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple and Sony should just merge now, let Sony do the ID.
That's one of your more inane suggestions.
More of a joke, though I have always respected Sony's ID.
Yeah, the Playstation 2 is a beauty. *cough*
Post by i***@mac.com
Sony was doing magnesium VAIO laptops way before Apple discovered titanium.
If Sony's product quality wasn't on the floor, that would be interesting.
Post by i***@mac.com
not that Sony's internal build quality has always matched Apple's.
Understatement of the decade. :-) Their quality hasn't always matched
that of Yugo.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
i***@mac.com
2005-06-10 10:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Randy Howard wrote:
~snip~
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
XP vs. 10.4 on the same hardware is going to open people's eyes I think.
Yeah, all the people that will already buy a Mac. 10.4 won't run on
the same hardware that millions of people run XP on, it'll run on a tiny
fraction of them, the few that have hardware that OS X supports all of
properly, likely to be ONLY those that buy SCUDs unless a miracle happens
and peripheral vendors leap at the chance to implement drivers on
hardware that Apple won't officially support.
I'm thinking side-by-side at Best Buy; 10.4's slick UI vs. XP's shitty
UE.

It's a PC -- that runs a Mac!
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
(I had thought Longhorn was going to do this, but it is indeed possible
that Apple will beat LH to market with their own version of "Longhorn", Tiger.
I'm not sure what you mean by "going to do this" wrt LH??? What is LH
going to do, open people's eyes about XP?
open peoples' eyes to how shitty XP's & x86's UE actually is/was. The
cruft, man. The funk of 20 years of incrementalism and being
chickenshit about breaking backwards compatibility.

Longhorn should have a modern, zero-defect (no redraw flash)
accelerated compositing window server like 10.2 had back in 2002. Nice
soft antialiasing and window drop-shadows. Higher-DPI UI.

It will have a modern, OOP API via C# and VB. It may not be better than
10.4, but it will be loads better than XP, I think as big an
improvement on XP that Win95 was on 3.1.

Furthermore I expected Longhorn to be staged with EFI hardware, such
that the crufty age-old PC-XT boot experience, dueling MBRs, real-mode
BIOS screens constructed by Taiwanese engineers not human factors
experts, etc etc will have finally been tossed, like the Mac did 20-odd
years prior.
Randy Howard
2005-06-10 19:40:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
~snip~
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
XP vs. 10.4 on the same hardware is going to open people's eyes I think.
Yeah, all the people that will already buy a Mac. 10.4 won't run on
the same hardware that millions of people run XP on, it'll run on a tiny
fraction of them, the few that have hardware that OS X supports all of
properly, likely to be ONLY those that buy SCUDs unless a miracle happens
and peripheral vendors leap at the chance to implement drivers on
hardware that Apple won't officially support.
I'm thinking side-by-side at Best Buy; 10.4's slick UI vs. XP's shitty
UE.
It's a PC -- that runs a Mac!
Gotcha. Not a lot of people go to Best Buy to compare systems, and most
times I've been in brick and mortar computer outfits, the Mac stuff is
pretty well separate from the PC stuff. But I see your point.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
(I had thought Longhorn was going to do this, but it is indeed possible
that Apple will beat LH to market with their own version of "Longhorn", Tiger.
I'm not sure what you mean by "going to do this" wrt LH??? What is LH
going to do, open people's eyes about XP?
open peoples' eyes to how shitty XP's & x86's UE actually is/was. The
cruft, man. The funk of 20 years of incrementalism and being
chickenshit about breaking backwards compatibility.
I doubt LH will be nearly as impressive in real life as people seem to
think it will be.
Post by i***@mac.com
Longhorn should have a modern, zero-defect (no redraw flash)
Sorry, I have to take a moment to recover, reading "zero-defect" in a
sentence about Windows threw me off for a moment....
Post by i***@mac.com
accelerated compositing window server like 10.2 had back in 2002. Nice
soft antialiasing and window drop-shadows. Higher-DPI UI.
It will have a modern, OOP API via C# and VB. It may not be better than
10.4, but it will be loads better than XP, I think as big an
improvement on XP that Win95 was on 3.1.
I would be much more impressed by stability than by more effects, but
readily admit that most people seem to make purchasing decisions off of
demoware rather than actual technical capability of the platform these
days.
Post by i***@mac.com
Furthermore I expected Longhorn to be staged with EFI hardware, such
that the crufty age-old PC-XT boot experience, dueling MBRs, real-mode
BIOS screens constructed by Taiwanese engineers not human factors
experts, etc etc will have finally been tossed, like the Mac did 20-odd
years prior.
Maybe MS has the horsepower to pull this off, but I suspect PC vendors
are going to be hard to convince, as MS has stated that they WILL NOT
ever support EFI on older Windows OS. Customers, especially corporate
customers, are very slow to move to new Windows releases out of the
sheer effort to transition, as well as waiting for it to be proven
first by others. For a PC vendor to sell a box that is locked into
LH will be a big leap of faith, and cut the sales of platforms that
use EFI initially.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
ZnU
2005-06-10 19:57:07 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
open peoples' eyes to how shitty XP's & x86's UE actually is/was. The
cruft, man. The funk of 20 years of incrementalism and being
chickenshit about breaking backwards compatibility.
I doubt LH will be nearly as impressive in real life as people seem to
think it will be.
From the perspective of the typical end user, Longhorn will probably
look like XP with a new theme, Yet Another Start Menu Redesign, and a
larger collection of wizards. I hate wizards.

[snip]
Post by Randy Howard
Post by i***@mac.com
Furthermore I expected Longhorn to be staged with EFI hardware, such
that the crufty age-old PC-XT boot experience, dueling MBRs, real-mode
BIOS screens constructed by Taiwanese engineers not human factors
experts, etc etc will have finally been tossed, like the Mac did 20-odd
years prior.
Maybe MS has the horsepower to pull this off, but I suspect PC vendors
are going to be hard to convince, as MS has stated that they WILL NOT
ever support EFI on older Windows OS. Customers, especially corporate
customers, are very slow to move to new Windows releases out of the
sheer effort to transition, as well as waiting for it to be proven
first by others. For a PC vendor to sell a box that is locked into
LH will be a big leap of faith, and cut the sales of platforms that
use EFI initially.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if Apple hardware ended up providing the best
user experience for running Longhorn? If Apple adopts EFI and the Wintel
OEMs don't, it could happen.
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
Joe Ragosta
2005-06-10 11:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
I'm just saying it's going to be rare for Apple to actually beat the
Wintel manufacturers at their own game.
Except that Apple has a vastly superior OS.
If Apple's OS is no better, then Apple has no future. If Apple's OS _is_
better (which is the whole point of Mac advocacy), then you'll have
Apple competing on a level playing field.
I wouldn't call it exactly level. Microsoft still owns the market, and
Apple will be a guest in its house.
Microsoft's income before taxes in the MRQ was nearly $4B.
Ballmer has probably been getting bored toying with the Linux partisans
and is looking forward to this latest challenge to MSFT's dominance.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how Microsoft controls and
Apple/Intel market.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Apple may actually have a better hardware position this way. How long
did it take after PC vendors introduced AGP before Apple had it?
About a year.
Post by Joe Ragosta
How long for SATA?
~6 months.
Post by Joe Ragosta
How long for PCIe?
Unknown.
That's exactly the point.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Since they'll be using the same
general chip sets, they should get those things right away - and there
won't be any hardware disadvantage.
True, I agree 100%. Making their own stuff has been more of a net
liability than a net benefit, pretty much after the 2nd generation Macs
shipped in '95, or maybe when Intel first shipped AGP in 1998.
Then why are you bitching about how they're going to fall behind?
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
It all comes down to the OS - where Apple wins big time.
I agree a lot. XP vs. 10.4 on the same hardware is going to open
people's eyes I think. (I had thought Longhorn was going to do this,
but it is indeed possible that Apple will beat LH to market with their
own version of "Longhorn", Tiger.
Then why are you spending all your time bitching about it?
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple and Sony should just merge now, let Sony do the ID.
That's one of your more inane suggestions.
More of a joke, though I have always respected Sony's ID. Sony was
doing magnesium VAIO laptops way before Apple discovered titanium.
Sony's ultralite laptops are very nice, and their mainstream laptops
are pretty good, and their VAIO desktops had integrated DV and audio a
long time ago.
Sony does make some very nice laptops. Most of the laptops we buy at
work are Sony's.

Apple makes some very nice laptops, too.
Post by i***@mac.com
I can say I've liked Sony's design language more than Ive's, easily,
not that Sony's internal build quality has always matched Apple's.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
How would you know about target disk mode?
It's something Apple's going to have to spend some time on to get
working. It's possible Apple will be able to put it in, but it's not
clear yet.
Then why do you keep making flat statements that it's gone?
i***@mac.com
2005-06-10 19:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
I'm just saying it's going to be rare for Apple to actually beat the
Wintel manufacturers at their own game.
Except that Apple has a vastly superior OS.
If Apple's OS is no better, then Apple has no future. If Apple's OS _is_
better (which is the whole point of Mac advocacy), then you'll have
Apple competing on a level playing field.
I wouldn't call it exactly level. Microsoft still owns the market, and
Apple will be a guest in its house.
Microsoft's income before taxes in the MRQ was nearly $4B.
Ballmer has probably been getting bored toying with the Linux partisans
and is looking forward to this latest challenge to MSFT's dominance.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how Microsoft controls
control? Where did I say control? Strawman much?
Post by Joe Ragosta
and Apple/Intel market.
Their bank, for one, gives them much influence.They can and do buy any
successful Mac developer.

2ndly their bank buys mindshare via advertising and astroturfing from
their PR firms.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Apple may actually have a better hardware position this way. How long
did it take after PC vendors introduced AGP before Apple had it?
About a year.
Post by Joe Ragosta
How long for SATA?
~6 months.
Post by Joe Ragosta
How long for PCIe?
Unknown.
That's exactly the point.
Sure. I've agreed that for the past 10 years PPC has been a net
liability and that moving to x86 is necessary for the good of the
platform as a whole. I kinda question the need to ditch PPC completely,
but I guess there's more to be gained in getting into bed with Intel
rather than trying to maintain a processor-agnostic strategy going
forward.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Since they'll be using the same
general chip sets, they should get those things right away - and there
won't be any hardware disadvantage.
True, I agree 100%. Making their own stuff has been more of a net
liability than a net benefit, pretty much after the 2nd generation Macs
shipped in '95, or maybe when Intel first shipped AGP in 1998.
Then why are you bitching about how they're going to fall behind?
I didn't say fall behind, I argued not get ahead, like how the
Macintosh II, IIci, IIfx, 9500, original Powerbooks were truly
stupendous products compared to their Wintel competition.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
It all comes down to the OS - where Apple wins big time.
I agree a lot. XP vs. 10.4 on the same hardware is going to open
people's eyes I think. (I had thought Longhorn was going to do this,
but it is indeed possible that Apple will beat LH to market with their
own version of "Longhorn", Tiger.
Then why are you spending all your time bitching about it?
Red herring fallacy.
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
How would you know about target disk mode?
It's something Apple's going to have to spend some time on to get
working. It's possible Apple will be able to put it in, but it's not
clear yet.
Then why do you keep making flat statements that it's gone?
"Gone, most likely" is a 'flat statement'?
Seeker1
2005-06-10 14:17:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
How would you know about target disk mode?
It's something Apple's going to have to spend some time on to get
working. It's possible Apple will be able to put it in, but it's not
clear yet.
This is not a developer-level issue so the developer note did not
discuss it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the new Tiger Setup assistant (the
firewire system migration thingie) "leverage" Firewire Target Disk Mode?

If so, wouldn't getting rid of FTDM mean one of the new features of
Tiger is now useless?
ZnU
2005-06-10 05:17:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
I just don't see Apple having any interesting design freedoms once it
goes with Intel chipsets.
I disagree. They may now be able to do a subnotebook, something they
couldn't have done with the G5. (Granted, they could have done one with
the G4, but it would have been a quickly dead in the water one).
I was talking about freedoms other Intel OEMs won't have, eg. the VAIO
T2
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000590040926/
Post by Seeker1
I do think people do need to look at what SJ emphasized -- they went
with Intel more for low power than for better performance. Low power
means designs with passive cooling... etc... you know the drill: freedom
to innovate.
I agree that Freescale was sucking the wang and not providing anything
for Apple to work with.
I'm just saying it's going to be rare for Apple to actually beat the
Wintel manufacturers at their own game.
Apple's control over the OS will let them adopt nearly everything faster
and better than than the Wintel OEMs, who often have to wait for
Microsoft's glacial development cycles.
Post by i***@mac.com
Apple and Sony should just merge now, let Sony do the ID.
Nah, Apple's is better.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
I don't see why. Apple can stick any functionality they want on the
motherboards of their machines.
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
I still think Apple will make
the mobos for Apple Macs - out of mostly off the shelf components, but
the design will still be Apple's. That means they can put unusual extras
on them, like Target Disk Mode.
We'll find out.
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
i***@mac.com
2005-06-10 07:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ZnU
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
I don't see why. Apple can stick any functionality they want on the
motherboards of their machines.
Certainly. Perhaps I overestimate the difficulties. Knowing the block
diagrams, eg for the iMac G5:

Loading Image...

Apple does hang stuff off of internal PCI buses, and is free to do this
even with Intel chipsets, but the thing is that *all* those boxes, not
just the G5, in that .gif are going to be eliminated next year.

Here's the Sonoma block diagram:

Loading Image...

Maybe they'll get the firewire controller talking to the hard disk
controller like now. I give it a 33% chance of it being there for
launch.
Travelinman
2005-06-10 11:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by ZnU
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
Remember firewire target disk mode? Gone, most likely.
I don't see that as being CPU-dependent.
No OF, no target disk mode AFAIK.
I don't see why. Apple can stick any functionality they want on the
motherboards of their machines.
Certainly. Perhaps I overestimate the difficulties.
That seems to be pretty much what you do best.

Like claiming that Apple was abandoning 64 bit - when it turns out that
even the developer systems are 64 bit.
i***@mac.com
2005-06-10 19:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Travelinman
Post by i***@mac.com
Certainly. Perhaps I overestimate the difficulties.
That seems to be pretty much what you do best.
Like claiming that Apple was abandoning 64 bit - when it turns out that
even the developer systems are 64 bit.
Never made that claim. 64-bit CPUs from Intel have additional registers
and other improvements that make them desirable, even if the 64-bitness
itself is something of a crock for the vast majority of apps.
Nasht0n
2005-06-10 01:19:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
That said, I thought we all agreed that the RELEASE OS X(I) will
probably be different from what developers are getting, as probably will
the release ICBMs. Between now and then, I'm still suspecting there will
be some form of 'lockdown' too.
Again, I wouldn't conclude, for example, that they will use a Phoenix
BIOS because the developer rig does. It looks like Apple is debating
internally whether to continue some implementation of Open Firmware for
the release machines, or go to EFI. Apparently all the ICBMs will be
using one or the other by 2007.
Implications:

Adobe and MS applications are Carbon-PITA to rewrite, possibility of MS
and especially Adobe (that swallowed up Macromedia recently) to not
invest resources into porting to an OS that will run on essentially the
same h/w as Wintel.

Apple will the be faced with a choice: either let people boot Longhorn
on their Macs (you can't run PS on OSX folks, but all you have to do is
boot into Windows)-very unlikely or use a Transitive type of technology
to be able to run Windows apps transparently on Macs.

Result: Apple better make some pretty compelling h/w and OS to entice
people into buying its products, otherwise, people will just come to the
conclusion: Why buy a Mac, when you can run everything on Windows anyway
for less?

If Longhorn catches up to Apple in system level color management and
font handling, you lost your pro clients. Will this happen now? Probably
not, but maybe in 2006 or 07. The gap is closing and Apple has very
little to create a RDF about. At least with PPC, it had an air of
mystery, now that's gone and SJ can't demonstrate PS on a Mac as running
faster that PS on a PC.

In conclusion, Apple must put LOTS of money into its OS. Fix up the
pathetic Finder and operations therein and improve user experience to
the point that it will be not just a little better than Windows, but
"insanely" better. This, IMHO, is the only way to force Adobe/Macromedia
and MS to continue porting their s/w to Macs.


Nicolas
Joe Ragosta
2005-06-10 01:51:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nasht0n
Post by Seeker1
Post by i***@mac.com
As it looks now, there will be a vanishingly small difference between
Dells and Apple computers in the future, modulo ID and the OS of
course.
Although I posted the development system specs as a matter of interest
and curiosity, I can't see why I would reach the same conclusions as
you.
The development system shows that OS X can and could run on generic kit
because that's what the dev system looks like...
That said, I thought we all agreed that the RELEASE OS X(I) will
probably be different from what developers are getting, as probably will
the release ICBMs. Between now and then, I'm still suspecting there will
be some form of 'lockdown' too.
Again, I wouldn't conclude, for example, that they will use a Phoenix
BIOS because the developer rig does. It looks like Apple is debating
internally whether to continue some implementation of Open Firmware for
the release machines, or go to EFI. Apparently all the ICBMs will be
using one or the other by 2007.
Adobe and MS applications are Carbon-PITA to rewrite, possibility of MS
and especially Adobe (that swallowed up Macromedia recently) to not
invest resources into porting to an OS that will run on essentially the
same h/w as Wintel.
Except that both Adobe and Microsoft have publicly announced that
they're supporting Mac on Intel.

So much for your theory.
ZnU
2005-06-09 17:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Post by Joe Ragosta
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV.
So you're concluding that Apple will never have another well-designed
computer on the basis of what is clearly an early prototype machine?
No, I'm concluding that Apple will become an Intel OEM on the model of
Sony, if things work out well.
Sony has some pretty neat hardware. I was playing around with one of
those tiny Vaios the other day. 10.4" screen (that goes up to 1280x768),
60 GB HD, 512 MB RAM, 2 GHz Pentium-M, DVD burner. And it's 3.1 pounds.
I'd be seriously tempted to get one if I trusted that Linux supported
the hardware well. I'd definitely buy a machine like that with OS X, and
Apple's design (which is still quite a bit nicer than Sony's). Well, if
it were $500 cheaper, anyway. (The Sony is $2200; I wouldn't spend that
much on a computer I couldn't use for everything.)

Who cares if the thing is made with off-the-shelf parts? The fact that
off-the-shelf hardware now apparently has the flexibility to do that
sort of thing means we'll see *more* interesting form factors and
designs, because there's no need to spend money designing custom
hardware for a concept that might not even work out.

[snip]
--
"This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply
ridiculous. And having said that, all options are on the table."
-- George W. Bush in Brussels, Belgium, Feb. 22, 2005
zara
2005-06-09 12:15:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@mac.com
Sigh. Seeing that picture I know that Steve Jobs just killed the last
ghosts of Wozniak from Apple Computer, Inc.
No more cool, unique, revolutionary hardware designs like the Lisa,
Mac, IIgs, Mac II, 660AV. It's going to be just Jonathan Ive's ID
skills vs. Sony et al as far as hardware goes.
If indeed I am able to order kit from newegg and install 10.4 on it
then that will be major compensation tho. If I had to choose tho, I'd
stick with the former. Theoretically, a company with $6B in the bank
should be able to actually put together compelling hardware, but as of
now there is no longer anyone making their own PCs, strictly speaking,
any more.
Apple just threw in the towel.
I wouldn't say that - when you have a small,quirky company with only 3%
market share and you want to increase sales - the best strategy is to copy
your biggest competitor. Apple wants to be more accepted by the 95% of
people who presently shun its products. I mean where can you go catering to
an extremely small group of misfits??
ShutterBugz
2005-06-09 14:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
<http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsI
D=14643>
Enjoy!
those pictures are soooooo depressing. i've been pretty sanguine about
it all, but sheesh, how fucken depresssing. like where's the craft? i
know some macs in the past have been pretty shitty inside. but the g5
was so beautiful. it was poetry.

i want a g5. a real one, that is. like just make a completely quixotic
gesture. my only worry is i won't have enough money for one before the
end. cos afterall, how much more can adobe pack into photoshop. the
upgrades are becoming more and more minor and trivial.

sheesh, i'm worken on a 400mhz G4.

all this focus on speed. for what?

you know, i have to live with this because fucken propellor heads have
fucken nothing better to do but sit there with fucken stopwatches to
measure god knows fucken what.

so i'm getting a G5. it does music, it does photos, it does video, it
does 3D and me and me G5 will live happily ever after.

cos folks, the desktop computer is facing a major crisis. there's a
whole heap of computer users out there saying upgrade?... why? if it
wasn't for action games the makers would be in an even bigger mess than
they are now.

okay, if i lose a few iq points in the future and want to mindlessly
game my life away, i'll fucken get a fucken console. at least the fucker
won't be "intel inside".

word fucken processing, for god's sake. i could do that just as well 20
odd years ago. microsoft word fitted on a floppy and even back then it
had more features than you could ever want. people have microsoft word
and they don't even know how to use something as basic as style sheets.
shit, all this fucken "power" and fucken ridiculous bloatware and most
users don't know simplest techniques of how to work efficiently. and
don't start me on the topic of people refusing to learn to type
properly. how fast is your word processor? well, if you're huntin' and
peckin' pretty fucken slow.

personal computers are all singing and all dancing -- but what's the
next killer app... 3D? 3D takes mucho talent guys. unless you're gunna
do lots of canned stuff. i aint into canned stuff. except Garageband but
then i don't know jack about music. and don't pretend to. and i only
play around anyways. people i know seriously into music. well, they been
happily doing stuff for years... and on much slower systems.

so come on propellor heads out there, what's all this need for speed
for? maybe jobs has had a vision. because like him or hate him, the guy
has vision. he can see that the end is nigh. not just for apple but for
personal computing as we know it. the only way out is to con people into
the need for more and more speed. and churn out more and more bloatware.
more dinky toys for people to play with. so here's a thought, steve
says, bugger it, we're not investing crap loads into this endeavour like
we've been doing only to lose out to crappy old intel's crappy old x86.
we'll pull the plug now. chuck in the towel. join everybody else on that
roadmap to hell.

it's a great big con really. one look in that box and you have to say
what a con. it'll be a quality intel box sure. and only it will run
macos. and it will run windows. it all makes sense. but apple will lose
some folks and more apps. it'll lose me, i'm buying a g5. fuck the
fucking benchmarks and technical wank wank wankery about which is a nth
of nanosecond faster.

i've been using a mac since 1988. and i'll keep using a mac. i just
can't see any point in upgrading. i'll get myself a g5 within the next
12 months or so. buy up on some software perhaps while it's easily
available... and ride into the sunset. me and me G5 will age gracefully
together -- and make some art... yes actually fucking do something --
and hopefully when and if i'm ready for something else, the revolution
will have finally come and there will be a damn good reason for
upgrading other than yet another stinking, rotten, lousy version of
Microshaft Orifice.

<end of rant>

anybody got a g5 for sale. free to a good home. ;-)
Duke Robillard
2005-06-09 15:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by ShutterBugz
<http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsID=14643>
those pictures are soooooo depressing. i've been pretty sanguine about
it all, but sheesh, how fucken depresssing. like where's the craft? i
know some macs in the past have been pretty shitty inside. but the g5
was so beautiful. it was poetry.
Calm down, it's just a prototype. It was either this or nail
the motherboard to a piece of plywood. :-)

I'm sure Apple's system builders will do lovely job on the real
product. I predict more water cooling.

Duke
Randy Howard
2005-06-09 19:26:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duke Robillard
Calm down, it's just a prototype.
No, it's a product being leased for $1500 a year, with no option
to purchase. I agree it does't need to be super beautiful though.
Post by Duke Robillard
It was either this or nail the motherboard to a piece of plywood. :-)
No need for the nails, but plywood is a common enough material
under bringup boards.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
I just care about success." --Steve Jobs
Lloyd Parsons
2005-06-09 19:30:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Randy Howard
Post by Duke Robillard
Calm down, it's just a prototype.
No, it's a product being leased for $1500 a year, with no option
to purchase. I agree it does't need to be super beautiful though.
Post by Duke Robillard
It was either this or nail the motherboard to a piece of plywood. :-)
No need for the nails, but plywood is a common enough material
under bringup boards.
Back in the day, I've had complete computers up and running as parts on
my desktop. That was when the company I work for was building and
selling our branded stuff. No need to stuff things in a case when
evaluating new m/b's and stuff.
ShutterBugz
2005-06-10 01:06:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Duke Robillard
Post by ShutterBugz
<http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsID=14643>
those pictures are soooooo depressing. i've been pretty sanguine about
it all, but sheesh, how fucken depresssing. like where's the craft? i
know some macs in the past have been pretty shitty inside. but the g5
was so beautiful. it was poetry.
Calm down, it's just a prototype. It was either this or nail
the motherboard to a piece of plywood. :-)
I'm sure Apple's system builders will do lovely job on the real
product. I predict more water cooling.
Duke
nail the motherboard to a piece of plywood? that would have been soooooo
funny! would have given everybody a damn good laugh at least. ;-)
TravelinMan
2005-06-09 16:00:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by ShutterBugz
Post by Alan Baker
<http://www.powerpage.org/cgi-bin/WebObjects/powerpage.woa/wa/story?newsI
D=14643>
Enjoy!
those pictures are soooooo depressing. i've been pretty sanguine about
it all, but sheesh, how fucken depresssing. like where's the craft? i
know some macs in the past have been pretty shitty inside. but the g5
was so beautiful. it was poetry.
It's a developer demo. I can't imagine why you'd expect them to spend as
much time crafting it as they did with the Mini, for example.
Post by ShutterBugz
i want a g5. a real one, that is. like just make a completely quixotic
gesture. my only worry is i won't have enough money for one before the
end. cos afterall, how much more can adobe pack into photoshop. the
upgrades are becoming more and more minor and trivial.
sheesh, i'm worken on a 400mhz G4.
all this focus on speed. for what?
Because some people want speed.
Post by ShutterBugz
you know, i have to live with this because fucken propellor heads have
fucken nothing better to do but sit there with fucken stopwatches to
measure god knows fucken what.
so i'm getting a G5. it does music, it does photos, it does video, it
does 3D and me and me G5 will live happily ever after.
That's always an option. And by the time you need your next Mac, you'll
have forgotten that PPC even existed because no one will care what
processor is in it.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...