f



Poll (Intel Macs, PowerPC Macs)

For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
year or earlier.

1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
check it out and be prepared?

2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
current Mac you use?

4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
desktop?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/6/2005 10:23:31 PM
comp.sys.mac.advocacy 34242 articles. 0 followers. Post Follow

78 Replies
862 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 53

 5. I will load OS X and dual boot it with Longhorn :)

0
jogiba (92)
6/6/2005 10:40:16 PM
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

Yes.

> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

Um.. my current dual 2.7Ghz Mac isn't likely to be upgraded to a newer model by 
Apple, so no. ;-)

> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

No, because I already have one.

> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

No.

-->Neil
0
nb_no_spam (292)
6/6/2005 10:44:03 PM
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
> 
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?
> 
> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> 
> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?
> 
> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?


It's dumb to buy any high end PPC Macs. I do worry how the snake oil SJ 
selling G5. But if you need your G5 for your FCP projects, you'd have no 
choice.
0
someone3 (1980)
6/6/2005 11:13:02 PM

Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
>
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based hardware, so
why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' hardware.

> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

Nope.


> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

I currently have a Dual 2.0GHz.  Fastest out there is Dual 2.7GHz.  I
don't see me upgrading any time soon.

> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

Not sure.  I currently have a Windows based notebook, and have no need
to upgrade.  When it dies (eventually), I'll probably get another
Windows based notebook (running AMD)

>
> --
> Andrew J. Brehm
> Marx Brothers Fan
> PowerPC/Macintosh User
> Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches

0
steve.travis (1413)
6/6/2005 11:21:50 PM
In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
> 
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

No.

> 
> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

Probably.

> 
> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

Probably not.

> 
> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

Doubtful.

-- 
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."
0
alangbaker (17682)
6/6/2005 11:29:24 PM
<imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:

> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > year or earlier.
> >
> > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > check it out and be prepared?
> 
> Thinking about getting the $999 P4 today, actually.

Are you a select ADC member?

> > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> 
> Sure, being able to run XP/Longhorn on the same box is a benefit.

What makes you think you could do that? Do you not think that Apple
would not want you to have such a fatal benefit?

> > 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> > current Mac you use?
> 
> Nope nope nope.
> 
> > 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> > desktop?
> 
> Yes. I'll keep using my PBG4 until it falls apart.


-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/6/2005 11:32:19 PM
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
>
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

Thinking about getting the $999 P4 today, actually.

> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

Sure, being able to run XP/Longhorn on the same box is a benefit.

> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

Nope nope nope.

> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

Yes. I'll keep using my PBG4 until it falls apart.

0
imouttahere (3635)
6/6/2005 11:33:48 PM
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > year or earlier.
> > >
> > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > check it out and be prepared?
> >
> > Thinking about getting the $999 P4 today, actually.
>
> Are you a select ADC member?

For the next few weeks, yes. I doubt I will renew.

> > > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> >
> > Sure, being able to run XP/Longhorn on the same box is a benefit.
>
> What makes you think you could do that? Do you not think that Apple
> would not want you to have such a fatal benefit?

Schiller apparently said they're not going to do anything to prevent
Windows from running. The AMD boxes I saw run 10.x were bog-standard.

0
imouttahere (3635)
6/6/2005 11:55:09 PM
In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
> 
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

No. I'm not an Apple developer off the expensive kind. 

> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

I don't know. 

> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

Maybe. It depends on when I get a raise. 

> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

I can't answer that until after the Mactel boxes ship.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/6/2005 11:56:18 PM
In article <1118097616.248198.295280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "binoviewer" <jogiba@hotmail.com> wrote:

>  5. I will load OS X and dual boot it with Longhorn :)

You can if you want to. I"ll go the cheaper route and glue an icepick to the 
keyboard. Whenever I feel like running Windows, I'll just lean down a bit.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/6/2005 11:57:09 PM
<imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:

> > > > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > > > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> > >
> > > Sure, being able to run XP/Longhorn on the same box is a benefit.
> >
> > What makes you think you could do that? Do you not think that Apple
> > would not want you to have such a fatal benefit?
> 
> Schiller apparently said they're not going to do anything to prevent
> Windows from running.

That could be dangerous.

> The AMD boxes I saw run 10.x were bog-standard.

Which AMD boxes?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 12:15:28 AM
Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > year or earlier.
> > 
> > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > check it out and be prepared?
> 
> No. I'm not an Apple developer off the expensive kind. 

I was talking about next year.

> > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> 
> I don't know. 
> 
> > 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> > current Mac you use?
> 
> Maybe. It depends on when I get a raise. 
> 
> > 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> > desktop?
> 
> I can't answer that until after the Mactel boxes ship.



-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 12:15:28 AM
In article <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:

> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > year or earlier.
> >
> > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > check it out and be prepared?
> 
> Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based hardware, so
> why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' hardware.

No, you won't.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/7/2005 12:49:10 AM
In article <1118100828.457700.69970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 imouttahere@mac.com wrote:

> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > year or earlier.
> >
> > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > check it out and be prepared?
> 
> Thinking about getting the $999 P4 today, actually.

You'll have to get a $500 Apple Developer Select membership first. 


> > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> 
> Sure, being able to run XP/Longhorn on the same box is a benefit.

How do you know you will be able to do that? 

> > 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> > current Mac you use?
> 
> Nope nope nope.
> 
> > 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> > desktop?
> 
> Yes. I'll keep using my PBG4 until it falls apart.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/7/2005 12:50:15 AM
In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
> 
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

Not so much, just bought a dual 2.3.

> 
> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

It depends on how FCP progresses. If I can find a solution to replace 
FCP/DVDSP, it's unlikely.

> 
> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

I did that a month ago.

> 
> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

Possibly, depends on how Protools is handled in the next year.
0
briantlewis1 (202)
6/7/2005 12:57:33 AM
In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
> 
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

No.


> 
> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

Yes.

> 
> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

I will buy a PPC mini as soon as the rev b comes out.
> 
> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

If you are asking if I will prefer a mactel to a ppc for one use or the 
other, the answer is no.
0
hoarse
6/7/2005 1:19:58 AM
In article <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:

> 
> > 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> > current Mac you use?
> 
> I currently have a Dual 2.0GHz.  Fastest out there is Dual 2.7GHz.  I
> don't see me upgrading any time soon.

This is why Lord Steve ordered the switch.
0
hoarse
6/7/2005 1:21:56 AM

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > year or earlier.
> > >
> > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > check it out and be prepared?
> >
> > Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based hardware, so
> > why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' hardware.
>
> No, you won't.

Wanna bet on that?

PearPC was able to emulate PPC on a x86 box (albeit slowly), proving
that it could be done.
How trivial do you think it will be to hack OS X (x86) to run on open
x86 hardware?

Don't be fooled by talks to DRM and all that other bullshit.  There
hasn't been a single (NOT ONE) copy protection scheme or what have you,
that hasn't been hacked.  OS X for the x86 will also be hacked.

Apple is entering into a period, of massive piracy.
>
> --
> Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
> If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship,
> then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.

0
steve.travis (1413)
6/7/2005 2:01:54 AM
<steve.travis@gmail.com> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > > year or earlier.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > > check it out and be prepared?
> > >
> > > Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based hardware, so
> > > why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' hardware.
> >
> > No, you won't.
> 
> Wanna bet on that?
> 
> PearPC was able to emulate PPC on a x86 box (albeit slowly), proving
> that it could be done.

Proving that something completely different could be done. This has
nothing to do with the problem here.

> How trivial do you think it will be to hack OS X (x86) to run on open
> x86 hardware?

Very. Mac OS X's kernel is free software. But that doesn't mean that OS
X will have drivers for any hardware but Apple's.

> Don't be fooled by talks to DRM and all that other bullshit.  There
> hasn't been a single (NOT ONE) copy protection scheme or what have you,
> that hasn't been hacked.  OS X for the x86 will also be hacked.
> 
> Apple is entering into a period, of massive piracy.

The problem in the PC world is not to see one's software copied millions
of times, it's supporting millions of configurations. BeOS didn't do it
well and that was bad for Be. But the same phenomenom will help Apple.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 2:05:00 AM

Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> <steve.travis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > In article <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > > > year or earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > > > check it out and be prepared?
> > > >
> > > > Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based hardware, so
> > > > why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' hardware.
> > >
> > > No, you won't.
> >
> > Wanna bet on that?
> >
> > PearPC was able to emulate PPC on a x86 box (albeit slowly), proving
> > that it could be done.
>
> Proving that something completely different could be done. This has
> nothing to do with the problem here.
>
> > How trivial do you think it will be to hack OS X (x86) to run on open
> > x86 hardware?
>
> Very. Mac OS X's kernel is free software. But that doesn't mean that OS
> X will have drivers for any hardware but Apple's.

Apple hardware (gfx card, etc) is commodity hardware.  Nothing special.

> > > Don't be fooled by talks to DRM and all that other bullshit.  There
> > hasn't been a single (NOT ONE) copy protection scheme or what have you,
> > that hasn't been hacked.  OS X for the x86 will also be hacked.
> >
> > Apple is entering into a period, of massive piracy.
>
> The problem in the PC world is not to see one's software copied millions
> of times, it's supporting millions of configurations. BeOS didn't do it
> well and that was bad for Be. But the same phenomenom will help Apple.

We'll have to wait and see.  IMO, Apple will get their clocks cleaned
on this one, but again, that's my opinion.  Time will tell.

0
steve.travis (1413)
6/7/2005 2:16:08 AM
<steve.travis@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > How trivial do you think it will be to hack OS X (x86) to run on open
> > > x86 hardware?
> >
> > Very. Mac OS X's kernel is free software. But that doesn't mean that OS
> > X will have drivers for any hardware but Apple's.
> 
> Apple hardware (gfx card, etc) is commodity hardware.  Nothing special.

That's true but so were all the PCs that Be and IBM tried to support
with BeOS and OS/2. Yet there were always driver issues.

If Be with all their initiative and IBM with all their market power
could not support the wide array of PC hardware out there, why do you
assume that OS X will run well, even assuming Apple would not do
anything to prevent it?

What I think is likely is that Mac OS X will boot on commodity PCs and
run about as well as Darwin today (i.e. terribly and probably not). It
will be a lot like Sun Solaris: available for x86 but really useful only
on the OS vendors hardware.

> > > > Don't be fooled by talks to DRM and all that other bullshit.  There
> > > hasn't been a single (NOT ONE) copy protection scheme or what have you,
> > > that hasn't been hacked.  OS X for the x86 will also be hacked.
> > >
> > > Apple is entering into a period, of massive piracy.
> >
> > The problem in the PC world is not to see one's software copied millions
> > of times, it's supporting millions of configurations. BeOS didn't do it
> > well and that was bad for Be. But the same phenomenom will help Apple.
> 
> We'll have to wait and see.  IMO, Apple will get their clocks cleaned
> on this one, but again, that's my opinion.  Time will tell.

You know, I'm really not sure what my next move will be. Over the years
I have become so familiar with Open Firmware, so used to being one of
the PowerPC camp (even before I used Mac OS X, I come from Linux/PPC ad
ultimately BeOS/PPC), that I don't know how to handle this.

I thought the next x86 box I'd buy would be a Sun workstation running
Solaris (Opteron-based). I'd never have thought it would be an Apple.

But I think I will buy one of Apple's last PowerPC boxen.

I'm just not sure what to do about a laptop. Perhaps an ARM-based Linux
machine would be cool?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 2:19:37 AM
In article <1118109714.410075.170810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > > year or earlier.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > > check it out and be prepared?
> > >
> > > Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based hardware, so
> > > why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' hardware.
> >
> > No, you won't.
> 
> Wanna bet on that?
> 
> PearPC was able to emulate PPC on a x86 box (albeit slowly), proving
> that it could be done.

Actually, there have been apps like that for years.  I remember seeing 
OS 7 running on mid-1990s Windows machines.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
0
cirby (1209)
6/7/2005 2:28:09 AM
Brian Lewis wrote:
> In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> 
>>For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
>>year or earlier.
>>
>>1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
>>check it out and be prepared?
> 
> 
> Not so much, just bought a dual 2.3.
> 
> 
>>2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
>>it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> 
> 
> It depends on how FCP progresses. If I can find a solution to replace 
> FCP/DVDSP, it's unlikely.
> 
> 
>>3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
>>current Mac you use?
> 
> 
> I did that a month ago.
> 
> 
>>4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
>>desktop?
> 
> 
> Possibly, depends on how Protools is handled in the next year.


Didn't you read that SJ kept all apps in both platforms. There will be a 
native FCP when the high end Intel Mac comes out. This maybe why they 
will use the Intel chips on the low ends Macs first so they have time to 
optimize all the codes for FCP. Wait 2 years.
0
someone3 (1980)
6/7/2005 3:03:22 AM
ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:

>But I think I will buy one of Apple's last PowerPC boxen.

So will I. I will probably spring for a G5 of some sort during its last days.

One other consideration might be getting an "XBook" when those emerge. I'm
not happy about it though.

>I'm just not sure what to do about a laptop. Perhaps an ARM-based Linux
>machine would be cool?

I like ARM a lot. An ARM-based system might be just the ticket. Or maybe I'll
just pull up stumps and move everything back to the Commodore. That's the
ultimate in a stable platform. :)

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/7/2005 3:04:01 AM
Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> 
> >But I think I will buy one of Apple's last PowerPC boxen.
> 
> So will I. I will probably spring for a G5 of some sort during its last days.

It will run 68k programs and my old Mac games. It will run those Mac
programs that run only slowly on the IBMs (Intel-based Macs). It might
even be actually faster! And it will be something to remember great
times.

> One other consideration might be getting an "XBook" when those emerge. I'm
> not happy about it though.

XBook?

> >I'm just not sure what to do about a laptop. Perhaps an ARM-based Linux
> >machine would be cool?
> 
> I like ARM a lot. An ARM-based system might be just the ticket. Or maybe
> I'll just pull up stumps and move everything back to the Commodore. That's
> the ultimate in a stable platform. :)

:-)

But seriously, an ARM-based more-than-palmtop, running some form of
UNIX-like system might just be fun.

Of course the iBook had the advantage of supporting cameras and memory
sticks and whatever else I plugged in while still having long battery
life and running a UNIX-like system. I'm not sure a fast Pentium-M willl
consume less power than my G3/600.


-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 3:05:57 AM
In article <timberwoof-5D2A40.17501606062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <1118100828.457700.69970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> 
> > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > year or earlier.
> > >
> > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > check it out and be prepared?
> > 
> > Thinking about getting the $999 P4 today, actually.
> 
> You'll have to get a $500 Apple Developer Select membership first. 
> 
> 
> > > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> > 
> > Sure, being able to run XP/Longhorn on the same box is a benefit.
> 
> How do you know you will be able to do that? 

VMWare or something like it will be released, hosting Windows on top of 
OS X at essentially native speeds. Hell, Microsoft has announced 
support, maybe they'll release VPC.

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/7/2005 3:09:54 AM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <timberwoof-5D2A40.17501606062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>  Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > How do you know you will be able to do that? 
> 
> VMWare or something like it will be released, hosting Windows on top of
> OS X at essentially native speeds. Hell, Microsoft has announced 
> support, maybe they'll release VPC.

I think I'll prefer Wine.

At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
Windows.

At least Wine is a worse Windows than Windows.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 3:17:39 AM
In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
> 
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?
> 
> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> 
> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?
> 
> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

I'm probably keeping this dual G5 for the next 18-24 months (would have 
done that anyway), at which time I guess I'll be getting an Intel-based 
Mac, since that'll be near the end of the transition period already.

That might also be the point at which I switch from a desktop to a 
laptop as my primary machine, depending on what's offered. Intel's 
mobile roadmap looks pretty good; they should be releasing their second 
generation dual-core Pentium-M chips around that time. On the other 
hand, if Apple uses the switch to Intel as an opportunity to offer 
cheaper high-performance desktops, I might be won over by those instead.

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/7/2005 3:23:12 AM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> 
> I'm probably keeping this dual G5 for the next 18-24 months (would have
> done that anyway), at which time I guess I'll be getting an Intel-based
> Mac, since that'll be near the end of the transition period already.

I will buy one of the last PowerPC boxen Apple sell, just to be safe. I
want to be able to run 68k programs and my old games.
 
> That might also be the point at which I switch from a desktop to a 
> laptop as my primary machine, depending on what's offered. Intel's 
> mobile roadmap looks pretty good; they should be releasing their second
> generation dual-core Pentium-M chips around that time. On the other 
> hand, if Apple uses the switch to Intel as an opportunity to offer 
> cheaper high-performance desktops, I might be won over by those instead.

I think there will be a year or two where Apple laptops will be IBMs
(Intel-based Macs, trying to establish the abbreviation) and high-end
desktops will remain G5s (perhaps expensive G5s will outrun Intel chips
as they occasionally did in the past).

My iBook will need replacing before my iMac, so I guess my first IBM
will be a laptop. And my next desktop will then be a PowerPC box. And
then the two-year period will be over.

Oh, well... I've always considered Sun as my next best option should
Apple do something I don't feel at home with.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 3:25:49 AM
In article <1gxrqtb.1ez3kkhsx4sz7N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I'm probably keeping this dual G5 for the next 18-24 months (would have
> > done that anyway), at which time I guess I'll be getting an Intel-based
> > Mac, since that'll be near the end of the transition period already.
> 
> I will buy one of the last PowerPC boxen Apple sell, just to be safe. I
> want to be able to run 68k programs and my old games.

Sure, but isn't your current PPC box more than fast enough for that 
stuff?

> > That might also be the point at which I switch from a desktop to a 
> > laptop as my primary machine, depending on what's offered. Intel's 
> > mobile roadmap looks pretty good; they should be releasing their second
> > generation dual-core Pentium-M chips around that time. On the other 
> > hand, if Apple uses the switch to Intel as an opportunity to offer 
> > cheaper high-performance desktops, I might be won over by those instead.
> 
> I think there will be a year or two where Apple laptops will be IBMs
> (Intel-based Macs, trying to establish the abbreviation) and high-end
> desktops will remain G5s (perhaps expensive G5s will outrun Intel chips
> as they occasionally did in the past).

It's quite possible. Intel's desktop roadmap looks a bit odd at the 
moment. They'll killing off the P4 line and introducing a 
high-performance desktop chip based on the Pentium-M design next year. 
Probably the right choice; the P4 seems to be paying the price for 
Intel's 'marketecture' phase, where they pushed clock speed at the 
expensive of balanced design. But it could take some time for things to 
settle out, and during that period the G5 could slip ahead. Depending on 
what IBM does with it, of course. They do use it in some of their own 
servers, so it doesn't seem likely they'll just abandon it.

> My iBook will need replacing before my iMac, so I guess my first IBM
> will be a laptop. And my next desktop will then be a PowerPC box. And
> then the two-year period will be over.
> 
> Oh, well... I've always considered Sun as my next best option should
> Apple do something I don't feel at home with.

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/7/2005 4:10:09 AM
In article <1118109714.410075.170810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > > year or earlier.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > > check it out and be prepared?
> > >
> > > Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based hardware, so
> > > why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' hardware.
> >
> > No, you won't.
> 
> Wanna bet on that?
> 
> PearPC was able to emulate PPC on a x86 box (albeit slowly), proving
> that it could be done.
> How trivial do you think it will be to hack OS X (x86) to run on open
> x86 hardware?

Emulating the instruction set is only 95% of the problem. Emulating the rest of 
the hardware is the rest. I think OSX/86 won't run non PC-AT. 


> Don't be fooled by talks to DRM and all that other bullshit.  There
> hasn't been a single (NOT ONE) copy protection scheme or what have you,
> that hasn't been hacked.  OS X for the x86 will also be hacked.

DRM has nothing to do with it. 

> Apple is entering into a period, of massive piracy.

I guess that means that OS X is a desirable operating system.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/7/2005 4:24:01 AM
In article <znu-21EB4E.23095406062005@individual.net>, ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> 
wrote:

> In article <timberwoof-5D2A40.17501606062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>  Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1118100828.457700.69970@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >  imouttahere@mac.com wrote:
> > 
> > > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > > > year or earlier.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > > > check it out and be prepared?
> > > 
> > > Thinking about getting the $999 P4 today, actually.
> > 
> > You'll have to get a $500 Apple Developer Select membership first. 
> > 
> > 
> > > > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > > > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> > > 
> > > Sure, being able to run XP/Longhorn on the same box is a benefit.
> > 
> > How do you know you will be able to do that? 
> 
> VMWare or something like it will be released, hosting Windows on top of 
> OS X at essentially native speeds. Hell, Microsoft has announced 
> support, maybe they'll release VPC.

No need to release VPC if the hardware will run Windows directly. Which it needs 
to do if OS X is to run on PC-AT.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
If Macintosh is a luxury cruise ship, 
then Linux is a freighter with wood paneling in the officers' quarters.
0
timberwoof (3216)
6/7/2005 4:25:39 AM
In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
> 
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

I haven't seen the webcast, but do you mean the developer intel Mac? Is it 
available to everyone?

> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

Well, I tend to use the latest hardware. At some point, that will be a intel 
Mac, right? :)

> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

I have a high-end Mac right now, I figure that by the time it need to be 
replaced, Apple might have already made large part of the transition.

> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

Same again, I will probably use the latest for both, regardless of what CPU is 
in it.

I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't remember 
ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU. I really don't 
care. I have a high end PC and a high end Mac, neither CPU is faster, as far as 
I am concerned. Obviously OSX, being a more robust and advanced operating 
system than Windows XP gets more milage out of the PPC, but that doesn't have 
anything to do with the CPU, and everything to do with the operating system.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
6/7/2005 5:57:41 AM
In article <timberwoof-E4E533.21240106062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:

> In article <1118109714.410075.170810@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> > Timberwoof wrote:
> > > In article 
> > > <1118100110.126505.52500@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > >  steve.travis@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > > > > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this 
> > > > > time next year or earlier.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have 
> > > > > one and check it out and be prepared?
> > > >
> > > > Nope.  I'll be able to run OSX/x86 on any other x86 based 
> > > > hardware, so why shell out the extra bucks for Apple 'blessed' 
> > > > hardware.
> > >
> > > No, you won't.
> > 
> > Wanna bet on that?
> > 
> > PearPC was able to emulate PPC on a x86 box (albeit slowly), 
> > proving that it could be done. How trivial do you think it will be 
> > to hack OS X (x86) to run on open x86 hardware?
> 
> Emulating the instruction set is only 95% of the problem. Emulating 
> the rest of the hardware is the rest. I think OSX/86 won't run non 
> PC-AT. 

PearPC can boot OS X already, so clearly whatever needs to be emulated, 
people have figured out how to emulate. We've also got the example of 
Mac-on-Linux, which is a VMWare-like environment that can run OS X under 
Linux on PPC hardware, including on non-Apple PPC hardware.

It is very unlikely there will be any significant technical barriers to 
running OS X like this on Windows or Linux/x86.

[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
0
znu (10395)
6/7/2005 6:23:05 AM
In article <timberwoof-B55E9B.21253906062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
 Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> > VMWare or something like it will be released, hosting Windows on top of 
> > OS X at essentially native speeds. Hell, Microsoft has announced 
> > support, maybe they'll release VPC.
> 
> No need to release VPC if the hardware will run Windows directly. 
> Which it needs to do if OS X is to run on PC-AT.

Many of us would still prefer running Windows under VPC or VMWare, in a 
controlled environment.

-- 
--Tim Smith
0
reply_in_group (13194)
6/7/2005 7:42:40 AM
In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.

> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?

Nope.

> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?

Probably - depending on how things look when the time comes.

> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?

Probably not - see #2.

> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?

Nope.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
6/7/2005 9:42:57 AM
In article <mr-DB3C3E.07574107062005@individual.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't remember 
> ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU. I really don't 
> care.

Good for you.

I'm one of those maccies who've had to defend my choice of platform 
with Real World people - and that includes defending the PPC. So this 
is rather a mouthful of sand for me.  B/

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
6/7/2005 9:48:44 AM
Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > The AMD boxes I saw run 10.x were bog-standard.
> 
> Which AMD boxes?

The ones I saw run 10.x...

0
imouttahere (3635)
6/7/2005 10:44:00 AM
In article <clund-764906.11484407062005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

>> I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
>> remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU.
>> I really don't care.
> 
> Good for you.
> 
> I'm one of those maccies who've had to defend my choice of platform
> with Real World people - and that includes defending the PPC. So this
> is rather a mouthful of sand for me.  B/

Hehe, sorry about that.

I really don't see the big deal here. It's just a CPU. The thing that Apple 
sells that I want to buy is not a IBM CPU, it's the operating system.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
6/7/2005 10:48:15 AM
<imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:

> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > <imouttahere@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The AMD boxes I saw run 10.x were bog-standard.
> > 
> > Which AMD boxes?
> 
> The ones I saw run 10.x...

Where?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 11:22:53 AM
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote:

> In article <timberwoof-B55E9B.21253906062005@typhoon.sonic.net>,
>  Timberwoof <timberwoof@stimpberawoofm.com> wrote:
> > > VMWare or something like it will be released, hosting Windows on top of
> > > OS X at essentially native speeds. Hell, Microsoft has announced 
> > > support, maybe they'll release VPC.
> > 
> > No need to release VPC if the hardware will run Windows directly. 
> > Which it needs to do if OS X is to run on PC-AT.
> 
> Many of us would still prefer running Windows under VPC or VMWare, in a
> controlled environment.

Even Microsoft seem to be of the opinion that this is a good idea. Since
there is a Virtual PC for Windows/x86.

Switching between operating systems by rebooting will certainly not be
an option for me. It's too awkward and I hate reboots.

It would also kill OS X if too many people found that they can run
Windows instead and tend to do so.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 11:22:53 AM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1gxrqtb.1ez3kkhsx4sz7N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > I'm probably keeping this dual G5 for the next 18-24 months (would have
> > > done that anyway), at which time I guess I'll be getting an Intel-based
> > > Mac, since that'll be near the end of the transition period already.
> > 
> > I will buy one of the last PowerPC boxen Apple sell, just to be safe. I
> > want to be able to run 68k programs and my old games.
> 
> Sure, but isn't your current PPC box more than fast enough for that 
> stuff?

Yes. But it might fall apart in a few years. With a newer PPC box I will
have more time or at least not less.

> > > That might also be the point at which I switch from a desktop to a
> > > laptop as my primary machine, depending on what's offered. Intel's
> > > mobile roadmap looks pretty good; they should be releasing their second
> > > generation dual-core Pentium-M chips around that time. On the other
> > > hand, if Apple uses the switch to Intel as an opportunity to offer
> > > cheaper high-performance desktops, I might be won over by those instead.
> > 
> > I think there will be a year or two where Apple laptops will be IBMs
> > (Intel-based Macs, trying to establish the abbreviation) and high-end
> > desktops will remain G5s (perhaps expensive G5s will outrun Intel chips
> > as they occasionally did in the past).
> 
> It's quite possible. Intel's desktop roadmap looks a bit odd at the 
> moment. They'll killing off the P4 line and introducing a 
> high-performance desktop chip based on the Pentium-M design next year.
> Probably the right choice; the P4 seems to be paying the price for 
> Intel's 'marketecture' phase, where they pushed clock speed at the 
> expensive of balanced design. But it could take some time for things to
> settle out, and during that period the G5 could slip ahead. Depending on
> what IBM does with it, of course. They do use it in some of their own
> servers, so it doesn't seem likely they'll just abandon it.

I actually think that abandoning the PPC is a mistake. Apple do not want
to support two platforms indefinitely, I am sure, but there is just too
much value in current PPC chips to give them up.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 11:22:54 AM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <1gxrcun.8s841dfgxtzeN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> > year or earlier.
> > 
> > 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> > check it out and be prepared?
> 
> I haven't seen the webcast, but do you mean the developer intel Mac? Is it
> available to everyone?

No. Assume next year.

> > 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> > it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
> 
> Well, I tend to use the latest hardware. At some point, that will be a intel
> Mac, right? :)

....

> > 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> > current Mac you use?
> 
> I have a high-end Mac right now, I figure that by the time it need to be
> replaced, Apple might have already made large part of the transition.

It's possible.

> > 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> > desktop?
> 
> Same again, I will probably use the latest for both, regardless of what CPU is
> in it.
> 
> I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
> remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU. I
> really don't care. I have a high end PC and a high end Mac, neither CPU is
> faster, as far as I am concerned. Obviously OSX, being a more robust and
> advanced operating system than Windows XP gets more milage out of the PPC,
> but that doesn't have anything to do with the CPU, and everything to do
> with the operating system.

I like the PowerPC. Comparing the chips was fun. Seeing the PowerPC win
occasionally was good. I always liked being on a different hardware
platform.

I know it's not significant for real work but using a Mac is about
geekishness too.


-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 11:22:55 AM
In article <mr-D96271.12481507062005@individual.net>,
 Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <clund-764906.11484407062005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > I'm one of those maccies who've had to defend my choice of platform
> > with Real World people - and that includes defending the PPC. So this
> > is rather a mouthful of sand for me.  B/

> Hehe, sorry about that.

> I really don't see the big deal here. It's just a CPU. The thing that Apple 
> sells that I want to buy is not a IBM CPU, it's the operating system.

Other than the bruised pride, the only real downside I can see with 
this is the very real possibility that the games I've accumulated over 
the years won't work on my next Mac. Oh well, they're just games, and 
I was planning on hanging on to my current mac in order to play OS 9 
games in the future. Guess I'll be using it for PPC games as well... ;)

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
6/7/2005 12:24:56 PM
In article <clund-CC3373.14245407062005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
 C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:

> Other than the bruised pride, the only real downside I can see with 
> this is the very real possibility that the games I've accumulated over 
> the years won't work on my next Mac. Oh well, they're just games, and 
> I was planning on hanging on to my current mac in order to play OS 9 
> games in the future. Guess I'll be using it for PPC games as well... ;)

As long as Civilization III plays long enough for that next-gen Civ to 
come out (they're working on it now), I guess I can manage.

When you get right down to it, the software transition won't be that 
hard for most of us.  Photoshop, Office, browsers, Mail... I'll just 
need a next-generation newsreader, and I'm sure Lemkesoft will update 
GraphicConverter.

-- 
I don't have a lifestyle.
I have a lifeCSS.
0
cirby (1209)
6/7/2005 1:10:00 PM
ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:

>>>But I think I will buy one of Apple's last PowerPC boxen.

>>So will I. I will probably spring for a G5 of some sort during its last days.

>It will run 68k programs and my old Mac games. It will run those Mac
>programs that run only slowly on the IBMs (Intel-based Macs). It might
>even be actually faster! And it will be something to remember great
>times.

My other thought is getting an iBook G4 before that line dies, since if
there's a line that will be converted ...

>>One other consideration might be getting an "XBook" when those emerge. I'm
>>not happy about it though.

>XBook?

.... it'll be that. It was a corruption of x86 and iBook ^_^ A little
opaque, sorry.

>>>I'm just not sure what to do about a laptop. Perhaps an ARM-based Linux
>>>machine would be cool?
>> 
>>I like ARM a lot. An ARM-based system might be just the ticket. Or maybe
>>I'll just pull up stumps and move everything back to the Commodore. That's
>>the ultimate in a stable platform. :)

>:-)
>But seriously, an ARM-based more-than-palmtop, running some form of
>UNIX-like system might just be fun.

That's what I was thinking exactly.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/7/2005 2:00:09 PM
ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:

>At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
>useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
>Windows.

That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.

>At least Wine is a worse Windows than Windows.

And so is VPC ... at least right now.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/7/2005 2:01:06 PM
Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> 
> >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> >Windows.
> 
> That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.

Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows environment.

> >At least Wine is a worse Windows than Windows.
> 
> And so is VPC ... at least right now.

Indeed.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 2:26:48 PM
In article <1gxscy5.rr7ckh1xa2ht1N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> > I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
> > remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU. I
> > really don't care. I have a high end PC and a high end Mac, neither CPU is
> > faster, as far as I am concerned. Obviously OSX, being a more robust and
> > advanced operating system than Windows XP gets more milage out of the PPC,
> > but that doesn't have anything to do with the CPU, and everything to do
> > with the operating system.
> 
> I like the PowerPC. Comparing the chips was fun. Seeing the PowerPC win
> occasionally was good. I always liked being on a different hardware
> platform.

Fair enough. I thought it was always a bit sad when after every "win" there was 
a period where the x86 crowd always ended up passing that edge anyway, since 
Apple and Moto/IBM couldn't keep up with Intel.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
6/7/2005 2:56:13 PM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <1gxscy5.rr7ckh1xa2ht1N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > > I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
> > > remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU.
> > > I really don't care. I have a high end PC and a high end Mac, neither
> > > CPU is faster, as far as I am concerned. Obviously OSX, being a more
> > > robust and advanced operating system than Windows XP gets more milage
> > > out of the PPC, but that doesn't have anything to do with the CPU, and
> > > everything to do with the operating system.
> > 
> > I like the PowerPC. Comparing the chips was fun. Seeing the PowerPC win
> > occasionally was good. I always liked being on a different hardware
> > platform.
> 
> Fair enough. I thought it was always a bit sad when after every "win"
> there was a period where the x86 crowd always ended up passing that edge
> anyway, since Apple and Moto/IBM couldn't keep up with Intel.

Yes.

But at least we used to have power consumption on our side.

It's ironic that this is where we finally got beaten.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 2:57:37 PM
In article <1gxslhm.10ckjn4t4vp0lN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> 
> > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > 
> > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> > >Windows.
> > 
> > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> 
> Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
> unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows environment.

Except for the people who prefer OS X to Windows.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/7/2005 3:59:38 PM
In article <42a5a849$0$16192$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
 Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> 
> >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> >Windows.
> 
> That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.

They won't be anything close to first-class citizens. Sure, they'll run 
faster, but they'll still look and feel exactly like Windows apps, and 
running them will still require running Windows, which isn't something 
most Mac users will do if they can avoid it. With something like a 
really good version of WINE for OS X, maybe Windows apps will at least 
live in native Aqua windows, it'll be possible to layer them with OS X 
apps, and actually running Windows won't be required... but they'll 
*still* mostly look like Windows apps; they've have windows controls, 
in-window menu bars, etc. They'll feel a lot like X11 apps on OS X do 
already, and I'd hardly call those first class citizens. (Actually, 
Windows apps would feel somewhat for foreign; at least X11 apps don't 
use drive letters....)

> >At least Wine is a worse Windows than Windows.
> 
> And so is VPC ... at least right now.

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/7/2005 4:02:23 PM
TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <1gxslhm.10ckjn4t4vp0lN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > > 
> > > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> > > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> > > >Windows.
> > > 
> > > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> > > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> > 
> > Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
> > unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows environment.
> 
> Except for the people who prefer OS X to Windows.

There were and are such people who preferred OS/2 to Windows.

But the number of people who prefer one system and are not lured by the
availability of applications for other is small.



-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 4:07:46 PM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <42a5a849$0$16192$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
>  Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> 
> > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > 
> > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> > >Windows.
> > 
> > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> 
> They won't be anything close to first-class citizens. Sure, they'll run
> faster, but they'll still look and feel exactly like Windows apps, and
> running them will still require running Windows, which isn't something
> most Mac users will do if they can avoid it. With something like a 
> really good version of WINE for OS X, maybe Windows apps will at least
> live in native Aqua windows, it'll be possible to layer them with OS X
> apps, and actually running Windows won't be required... but they'll 
> *still* mostly look like Windows apps; they've have windows controls,
> in-window menu bars, etc. They'll feel a lot like X11 apps on OS X do
> already, and I'd hardly call those first class citizens. (Actually, 
> Windows apps would feel somewhat for foreign; at least X11 apps don't
> use drive letters....)
> 

A worse Windows than Windows might work. Wine at least gives Linux MS
Office and Lotus Notes. (Mac OS has to worry about neither at the
moment.)

A better Windows than Windows doesn't work.

Did anybody else think that the Microsoft representative in the keynote
was a bit less than enthusiastic?

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 4:07:47 PM
In article <1gxsq5a.10b5zka16ub28N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gxslhm.10ckjn4t4vp0lN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
> >  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > 
> > > Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > > > 
> > > > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> > > > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> > > > >Windows.
> > > > 
> > > > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> > > > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> > > 
> > > Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
> > > unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows environment.
> > 
> > Except for the people who prefer OS X to Windows.
> 
> There were and are such people who preferred OS/2 to Windows.
> 
> But the number of people who prefer one system and are not lured by the
> availability of applications for other is small.

Perhaps. But the point is that people who prefer OS X can use it AND 
still have access to Windows apps under WINE.

Today, if someone absolutely has to have a specific app, they're going 
to use Windows - no matter how much they prefer OS X. 

With Mactel, that changes. If they prefer OS X, they can use it all the 
time - and run their special app under WINE.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/7/2005 7:22:08 PM
TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:

> In article <1gxsq5a.10b5zka16ub28N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1gxslhm.10ckjn4t4vp0lN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
> > >  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> > > > > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> > > > > >Windows.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> > > > > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> > > > 
> > > > Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
> > > > unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows environment.
> > > 
> > > Except for the people who prefer OS X to Windows.
> > 
> > There were and are such people who preferred OS/2 to Windows.
> > 
> > But the number of people who prefer one system and are not lured by the
> > availability of applications for other is small.
> 
> Perhaps. But the point is that people who prefer OS X can use it AND 
> still have access to Windows apps under WINE.

Yes, as did OS/2 users.

> Today, if someone absolutely has to have a specific app, they're going
> to use Windows - no matter how much they prefer OS X. 

Usuallt such a scenarion involves a computer used for a special job.
These users might use a Windows box for work and a Mac at home.

> With Mactel, that changes. If they prefer OS X, they can use it all the
> time - and run their special app under WINE.

Perhaps.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/7/2005 7:25:28 PM
In article 
<cirby-25B809.09100007062005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
 Chad Irby <cirby@cfl.rr.com> wrote:

> As long as Civilization III plays long enough for that next-gen Civ to 
> come out (they're working on it now), I guess I can manage.

Yep. In my case it's mainly Enemy Territory and Aleph One.

> When you get right down to it, the software transition won't be that 
> hard for most of us.  Photoshop, Office, browsers, Mail... I'll just 
> need a next-generation newsreader, and I'm sure Lemkesoft will update 
> GraphicConverter.

By the time I buy my next mac, it'll probably be time for me to buy a 
new version of Photoshop Elements anyway. And Graphic Converter isn't 
that expensive - assuming my registration code is outdated. And 
AppleWorks can be replaced by iWorks (or whatever it's called).

> -- 
> I don't have a lifestyle.
> I have a lifeCSS.

-- 
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
0
clund (6340)
6/7/2005 8:42:39 PM
Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <clund-764906.11484407062005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
>  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> 
> >> I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
> >> remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU.
> >> I really don't care.
> > 
> > Good for you.
> > 
> > I'm one of those maccies who've had to defend my choice of platform
> > with Real World people - and that includes defending the PPC. So this
> > is rather a mouthful of sand for me.  B/
> 
> Hehe, sorry about that.
> 
> I really don't see the big deal here. It's just a CPU. The thing that Apple
> sells that I want to buy is not a IBM CPU, it's the operating system.

I dunno so much.  Mac ownership is also a state of mind.  Having PPC
somehow made the Mac more desirable for me, even when it wasn't the
fastest.  Somehow, announcing Macs will use x86, feels akin to Ferrari
announcing it's going to start putting Chevvy pushrod V8's in it's cars
from now on.  They'll still be fast, and possibly with even more power,
but It just doesn't feel right somehow.

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
0
me41 (1097)
6/7/2005 9:38:32 PM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

>>That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
>>citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.

>They won't be anything close to first-class citizens. Sure, they'll run 
>faster, but they'll still look and feel exactly like Windows apps, and 
>running them will still require running Windows, which isn't something 
>most Mac users will do if they can avoid it. With something like a 
>really good version of WINE for OS X, maybe Windows apps will at least 
>live in native Aqua windows, it'll be possible to layer them with OS X 
>apps, and actually running Windows won't be required... but they'll 
>*still* mostly look like Windows apps; they've have windows controls, 
>in-window menu bars, etc. They'll feel a lot like X11 apps on OS X do 
>already, and I'd hardly call those first class citizens. (Actually, 
>Windows apps would feel somewhat for foreign; at least X11 apps don't 
>use drive letters....)

But they would still run at or nearly at full speed, would *appear*
(especially if they no longer needed to run within a console window) to be
part of the operating system, and it would not be that hard to complete the
integration with the Dock, process list, etc., to make them look like
they're "legitimate" applications too, just ones that look a little odd.
That's not total first-class, but it's up there.

Right now, the present Virtual PC is a minimal threat because of its speed
and the fact everything must be done in a console window. If you take
these two hurdles away, the apps become much more accessible and temptingly
available. With people being able to use the Windows binaries with much
less shackling, why would they use the Mac version?

I fear VPC a lot more than I fear WINE, mostly because 1) WINE is developed
slower and 2) the WINE people dislike Microsoft, don't want to give them any
advantages, and just want the programs to run on a non-MS platform but with
no special prizes or abilities. Microsoft, OTOH, wants VPC to be a first-
class citizen. VPC already integrates Windows applications into the Dock
and offers you a Start menu in the Dock. Allowing apps to run in their own
windows outside of a console is not a huge step, and Apple is already solving
the architecture incompatibilities for them.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/7/2005 11:08:05 PM
In article <42a6285a$0$16174$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
 Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
> 
> >>That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> >>citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> 
> >They won't be anything close to first-class citizens. Sure, they'll run 
> >faster, but they'll still look and feel exactly like Windows apps, and 
> >running them will still require running Windows, which isn't something 
> >most Mac users will do if they can avoid it. With something like a 
> >really good version of WINE for OS X, maybe Windows apps will at least 
> >live in native Aqua windows, it'll be possible to layer them with OS X 
> >apps, and actually running Windows won't be required... but they'll 
> >*still* mostly look like Windows apps; they've have windows controls, 
> >in-window menu bars, etc. They'll feel a lot like X11 apps on OS X do 
> >already, and I'd hardly call those first class citizens. (Actually, 
> >Windows apps would feel somewhat for foreign; at least X11 apps don't 
> >use drive letters....)
> 
> But they would still run at or nearly at full speed, would *appear*
> (especially if they no longer needed to run within a console window) to be
> part of the operating system, and it would not be that hard to complete the
> integration with the Dock, process list, etc., to make them look like
> they're "legitimate" applications too, just ones that look a little odd.
> That's not total first-class, but it's up there.
> 
> Right now, the present Virtual PC is a minimal threat because of its speed
> and the fact everything must be done in a console window. If you take
> these two hurdles away, the apps become much more accessible and temptingly
> available. With people being able to use the Windows binaries with much
> less shackling, why would they use the Mac version?

Mac users are pretty picky about these sorts of things. Even native Mac 
apps that don't feel quite Mac-like enough -- like the famous Word 6 -- 
get blasted.

> I fear VPC a lot more than I fear WINE, mostly because 1) WINE is developed
> slower and 2) the WINE people dislike Microsoft, don't want to give them any
> advantages, and just want the programs to run on a non-MS platform but with
> no special prizes or abilities. Microsoft, OTOH, wants VPC to be a first-
> class citizen. VPC already integrates Windows applications into the Dock
> and offers you a Start menu in the Dock. Allowing apps to run in their own
> windows outside of a console is not a huge step, and Apple is already solving
> the architecture incompatibilities for them.

I don't see that Microsoft has such a major incentive to make Windows 
app run well on Mactel. It would lower the barriers to switching away 
from Wintel, because you could still run all your Windows apps... until 
you found Mac software to replace them with.

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/8/2005 2:54:37 AM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

>>With people being able to use the Windows binaries with much
>>less shackling, why would they use the Mac version?

>Mac users are pretty picky about these sorts of things. Even native Mac 
>apps that don't feel quite Mac-like enough -- like the famous Word 6 -- 
>get blasted.

Oh, I'm not worried about the present Mac user base. I'm talking about
people who have heard about this "Intel-Based Mac" and are thinking of
switching "because it's like the PC I used." If they see a bunch of Windows
apps running on it, what are they likely to think?

Yeah, of course, present Mac users will see it for the smoke and mirrors
that it is. But Apple wants to grow.

>>I fear VPC a lot more than I fear WINE, mostly because 1) WINE is developed
>>slower and 2) the WINE people dislike Microsoft, don't want to give them any
>>advantages, and just want the programs to run on a non-MS platform but with
>>no special prizes or abilities. Microsoft, OTOH, wants VPC to be a first-
>>class citizen. VPC already integrates Windows applications into the Dock
>>and offers you a Start menu in the Dock. Allowing apps to run in their own
>>windows outside of a console is not a huge step, and Apple is already solving
>>the architecture incompatibilities for them.

>I don't see that Microsoft has such a major incentive to make Windows 
>app run well on Mactel. It would lower the barriers to switching away 
>from Wintel, because you could still run all your Windows apps... until 
>you found Mac software to replace them with.

Only the present Mac user base would do that, not the switchers *from*
Windows that Stevie J wants (and whom he envisions to be a larger proportion,
although this may be pure RDF). Besides, Microsoft, being merely a software
company (Xbox excepted), only cares to get Windows on as many computers as
possible. If they can get their claws into an Xtel and engulf that into
the Borg, so much the better. In fact, I think Microsoft would relish the
possibility because of Apple's tremendous mindshare; I don't think they would
have even bothered purchasing VPC otherwise.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/8/2005 3:59:16 AM
In article <1gxt4qs.1t1n64is5s4g4N%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <clund-764906.11484407062005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > 
> > >> I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
> > >> remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU.
> > >> I really don't care.
> > > 
> > > Good for you.
> > > 
> > > I'm one of those maccies who've had to defend my choice of platform
> > > with Real World people - and that includes defending the PPC. So this
> > > is rather a mouthful of sand for me.  B/
> > 
> > Hehe, sorry about that.
> > 
> > I really don't see the big deal here. It's just a CPU. The thing that Apple
> > sells that I want to buy is not a IBM CPU, it's the operating system.
> 
> I dunno so much.  Mac ownership is also a state of mind.  Having PPC
> somehow made the Mac more desirable for me, even when it wasn't the
> fastest.  Somehow, announcing Macs will use x86, feels akin to Ferrari
> announcing it's going to start putting Chevvy pushrod V8's in it's cars
> from now on.  They'll still be fast, and possibly with even more power,
> but It just doesn't feel right somehow.

It's all in your head.

-- 
Sandman[.net]
0
mr249 (22318)
6/8/2005 6:05:28 AM
In article <42a66cb0$0$16251$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
 Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

[snip]

> >I don't see that Microsoft has such a major incentive to make 
> >Windows app run well on Mactel. It would lower the barriers to 
> >switching away from Wintel, because you could still run all your 
> >Windows apps... until you found Mac software to replace them with.
> 
> Only the present Mac user base would do that, not the switchers 
> *from* Windows that Stevie J wants (and whom he envisions to be a 
> larger proportion, although this may be pure RDF).

That doesn't make any sense. The user experience is the whole *point* 
of the Mac. Anyone switching is interested in the Mac user experience 
essentially by definition. The people who are happy running Windows apps 
in a Windows environment will just keep using Windows.

> Besides, Microsoft, being merely a software company (Xbox excepted), 
> only cares to get Windows on as many computers as possible. If they 
> can get their claws into an Xtel and engulf that into the Borg, so 
> much the better. In fact, I think Microsoft would relish the 
> possibility because of Apple's tremendous mindshare; I don't think 
> they would have even bothered purchasing VPC otherwise.

They bought VPC primarily so they could play in the virtualization space 
on x86. They never showed any interest at all before Connectix got into 
that market. The the Mac version was probably tossed to the MacBU as an 
afterthought. If they really took it seriously, and saw it as an 
effective way to undermine Apple, they could deliver *much* better 
performance by compiling Windows for PPC and only emulating application 
code, but they've never bothered.

MacBU *might* release VPC for Mactel, but if they do it probably won't 
be part of a broader plan by the mothership -- it'll just be another 
profitable product. (Though I expect an open source virtual machine may 
emerge fairly fast, or maybe a version of VMWare.)

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/8/2005 6:53:39 AM
In article <1gxt4qs.1t1n64is5s4g4N%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> 
> > In article <clund-764906.11484407062005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> >  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > 
> > >> I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
> > >> remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU.
> > >> I really don't care.
> > > 
> > > Good for you.
> > > 
> > > I'm one of those maccies who've had to defend my choice of platform
> > > with Real World people - and that includes defending the PPC. So this
> > > is rather a mouthful of sand for me.  B/
> > 
> > Hehe, sorry about that.
> > 
> > I really don't see the big deal here. It's just a CPU. The thing that Apple
> > sells that I want to buy is not a IBM CPU, it's the operating system.
> 
> I dunno so much.  Mac ownership is also a state of mind.  Having PPC
> somehow made the Mac more desirable for me, even when it wasn't the
> fastest.  Somehow, announcing Macs will use x86, feels akin to Ferrari
> announcing it's going to start putting Chevvy pushrod V8's in it's cars
> from now on.  They'll still be fast, and possibly with even more power,
> but It just doesn't feel right somehow.

I bet it'll feel just fine the first time you use a slick little Apple 
laptop with significantly better performance and battery life than the 
current models -- that just happens to contain an Intel chip.

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/8/2005 6:58:25 AM
In article <1gxsq5a.10b5zka16ub28N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gxslhm.10ckjn4t4vp0lN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
> >  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > 
> > > Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > > > 
> > > > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> > > > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> > > > >Windows.
> > > > 
> > > > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> > > > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> > > 
> > > Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
> > > unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows environment.
> > 
> > Except for the people who prefer OS X to Windows.
> 
> There were and are such people who preferred OS/2 to Windows.

OS/2 was a little different (a lot actually). IBM went out of their way 
to ensure windows compatibility.  They held up version 2.0 until they 
could build in windows 3.0! support.  They used MS source (as I recall) 
to put windows 3.1 into the system.  They even marketed a version called 
"OS/2 for windows".  Their OS/2 compiler was extremely expensive so few 
people could learn how to write OS/2 apps.  Hence, there were few native 
apps.  I know I used it for quite a few years, I had some OS/2 apps and 
lots of DOS apps. 

Apple's gone out of their way to get developers on board OS X, free 
XCode tools plus most of the unix stuff (PERL, Apache etc).  Some of the 
biggest names in the business write for Apple, they have a huge 
selection of software, despite the x86trolls shrill cries to the 
contrary, and they have an established customer base.

I don't see how having VMWare or WINE for one or two "must have" windows 
apps (which I've never ran into) will hurt the platform.  
 
> But the number of people who prefer one system and are not lured by the
> availability of applications for other is small.

-- 
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
0
Liberty3 (1121)
6/8/2005 9:48:07 AM
In article <znu-BA179B.22543707062005@individual.net>,
 ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:


> 
> I don't see that Microsoft has such a major incentive to make Windows 
> app run well on Mactel. It would lower the barriers to switching away 
> from Wintel, because you could still run all your Windows apps... until 
> you found Mac software to replace them with.

Not to mention, of course, that Wintrolls insist that things like Office 
are much cheaper in the PC version. If they are correct, then Microsoft 
benefits directly from having a special Mac version.
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/8/2005 12:11:24 PM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

>>>It would lower the barriers to 
>>>switching away from Wintel, because you could still run all your 
>>>Windows apps... until you found Mac software to replace them with.

>>Only the present Mac user base would do that, not the switchers 
>>*from* Windows that Stevie J wants

>That doesn't make any sense. The user experience is the whole *point* 
>of the Mac. Anyone switching is interested in the Mac user experience 
>essentially by definition.

But if their old Windows software works fine on the Mac (i.e., it boots and
lets them do the things they originally did, whether or not the interface has
changed), are they going to go out and buy new versions? That doesn't make
any sense either.

>>Besides, Microsoft, being merely a software company (Xbox excepted), 
>>only cares to get Windows on as many computers as possible. If they 
>>can get their claws into an Xtel and engulf that into the Borg, so 
>>much the better. In fact, I think Microsoft would relish the 
>>possibility because of Apple's tremendous mindshare; I don't think 
>>they would have even bothered purchasing VPC otherwise.

>They bought VPC primarily so they could play in the virtualization space 
>on x86. They never showed any interest at all before Connectix got into 
>that market. The the Mac version was probably tossed to the MacBU as an 
>afterthought. If they really took it seriously, and saw it as an 
>effective way to undermine Apple, they could deliver *much* better 
>performance by compiling Windows for PPC and only emulating application 
>code, but they've never bothered.

Because doing so would be a big pain in the butt for little gain (I imagine
Windows is hardly as platform-agnostic as OS X is these days). Now that
Apple has saved them the effort of having to convert architectures, they can
use Windows as is with some glue code to insinuate it into the OS. That's
a much easier way to make a "better" VPC and to, from their point of view,
streamline its integration into the OS.

>MacBU *might* release VPC for Mactel, but if they do it probably won't 
>be part of a broader plan by the mothership -- it'll just be another 
>profitable product. (Though I expect an open source virtual machine may 
>emerge fairly fast, or maybe a version of VMWare.)

I'm quite sure they *will* release it.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/8/2005 1:49:04 PM
In article <42a6f701$0$91621$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
 Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
> 
> >>>It would lower the barriers to 
> >>>switching away from Wintel, because you could still run all your 
> >>>Windows apps... until you found Mac software to replace them with.
> 
> >>Only the present Mac user base would do that, not the switchers 
> >>*from* Windows that Stevie J wants
> 
> >That doesn't make any sense. The user experience is the whole *point* 
> >of the Mac. Anyone switching is interested in the Mac user experience 
> >essentially by definition.
> 
> But if their old Windows software works fine on the Mac (i.e., it boots and
> lets them do the things they originally did, whether or not the interface has
> changed), are they going to go out and buy new versions? That doesn't make
> any sense either.

Probably not right away. But the next time there's a new version, why 
not buy the Mac version?
0
Nowhere (5224)
6/8/2005 2:14:41 PM
StormDrain <Liberty@MS-Free.com> wrote:

> In article <1gxsq5a.10b5zka16ub28N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <1gxslhm.10ckjn4t4vp0lN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
> > >  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > > > > 
> > > > > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just become
> > > > > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows than
> > > > > >Windows.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first class
> > > > > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> > > > 
> > > > Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
> > > > unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows environment.
> > > 
> > > Except for the people who prefer OS X to Windows.
> > 
> > There were and are such people who preferred OS/2 to Windows.
> 
> OS/2 was a little different (a lot actually). IBM went out of their way
> to ensure windows compatibility.  They held up version 2.0 until they
> could build in windows 3.0! support.  They used MS source (as I recall)
> to put windows 3.1 into the system.  They even marketed a version called
> "OS/2 for windows".  Their OS/2 compiler was extremely expensive so few
> people could learn how to write OS/2 apps.  Hence, there were few native
> apps.  I know I used it for quite a few years, I had some OS/2 apps and
> lots of DOS apps. 

I used it until 1998.

> Apple's gone out of their way to get developers on board OS X, free 
> XCode tools plus most of the unix stuff (PERL, Apache etc).  Some of the
> biggest names in the business write for Apple, they have a huge 
> selection of software, despite the x86trolls shrill cries to the 
> contrary, and they have an established customer base.
> 
> I don't see how having VMWare or WINE for one or two "must have" windows
> apps (which I've never ran into) will hurt the platform.  
>  

Unfortunately you only have to see it happening. Once software companies
figure that Mac users will happily run Windows applications rather than
not buy an application at all, software companies will see the
opportunity to save money by maintaining a Windows version only,
possibly with compatibility tests under Wine/OSX or so.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/8/2005 4:27:41 PM
In article <42a6f701$0$91621$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
 Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
> 
> >>>It would lower the barriers to 
> >>>switching away from Wintel, because you could still run all your 
> >>>Windows apps... until you found Mac software to replace them with.
> 
> >>Only the present Mac user base would do that, not the switchers 
> >>*from* Windows that Stevie J wants
> 
> >That doesn't make any sense. The user experience is the whole *point* 
> >of the Mac. Anyone switching is interested in the Mac user experience 
> >essentially by definition.
> 
> But if their old Windows software works fine on the Mac (i.e., it boots and
> lets them do the things they originally did, whether or not the interface has
> changed), are they going to go out and buy new versions? That doesn't make
> any sense either.

Over time, sure. Like I keep saying, if you're happy running Windows and 
Windows apps, you won't buy an Apple machine in the first place.

> >>Besides, Microsoft, being merely a software company (Xbox excepted), 
> >>only cares to get Windows on as many computers as possible. If they 
> >>can get their claws into an Xtel and engulf that into the Borg, so 
> >>much the better. In fact, I think Microsoft would relish the 
> >>possibility because of Apple's tremendous mindshare; I don't think 
> >>they would have even bothered purchasing VPC otherwise.
> 
> >They bought VPC primarily so they could play in the virtualization space 
> >on x86. They never showed any interest at all before Connectix got into 
> >that market. The the Mac version was probably tossed to the MacBU as an 
> >afterthought. If they really took it seriously, and saw it as an 
> >effective way to undermine Apple, they could deliver *much* better 
> >performance by compiling Windows for PPC and only emulating application 
> >code, but they've never bothered.
> 
> Because doing so would be a big pain in the butt for little gain (I imagine
> Windows is hardly as platform-agnostic as OS X is these days). Now that
> Apple has saved them the effort of having to convert architectures, they can
> use Windows as is with some glue code to insinuate it into the OS. That's
> a much easier way to make a "better" VPC and to, from their point of view,
> streamline its integration into the OS.
> 
> >MacBU *might* release VPC for Mactel, but if they do it probably won't 
> >be part of a broader plan by the mothership -- it'll just be another 
> >profitable product. (Though I expect an open source virtual machine may 
> >emerge fairly fast, or maybe a version of VMWare.)
> 
> I'm quite sure they *will* release it.

So, why haven't they done this for Linux, is it's such a great way to 
undermine non-Windows platforms?

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/8/2005 5:18:09 PM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> In article <1gxt4qs.1t1n64is5s4g4N%me4@privacy.net>,
>  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> 
> > Sandman <mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> > 
> > > In article <clund-764906.11484407062005@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> > >  C Lund <clund@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > > 
> > > >> I am one of those "Maccies" that aren't humiliated by this. I don't
> > > >> remember ever backtalking Intel or claiming that PPC is the best CPU.
> > > >> I really don't care.
> > > > 
> > > > Good for you.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm one of those maccies who've had to defend my choice of platform
> > > > with Real World people - and that includes defending the PPC. So this
> > > > is rather a mouthful of sand for me.  B/
> > > 
> > > Hehe, sorry about that.
> > > 
> > > I really don't see the big deal here. It's just a CPU. The thing that
> > > Apple sells that I want to buy is not a IBM CPU, it's the operating
> > > system.
> > 
> > I dunno so much.  Mac ownership is also a state of mind.  Having PPC
> > somehow made the Mac more desirable for me, even when it wasn't the
> > fastest.  Somehow, announcing Macs will use x86, feels akin to Ferrari
> > announcing it's going to start putting Chevvy pushrod V8's in it's cars
> > from now on.  They'll still be fast, and possibly with even more power,
> > but It just doesn't feel right somehow.
> 
> I bet it'll feel just fine the first time you use a slick little Apple
> laptop with significantly better performance and battery life than the
> current models -- that just happens to contain an Intel chip.

Yes, I know it's something we'll all have to get used to, and I'm sure
it won't matter one jot to the end user, but from the point of view of
an idealist such as myself, I'll know that underneath the skin, there
ticks an ISA that should have been dead and buried 20 years ago before
it could infest the whole industry.

And I still can't help but lament at what PPC and future derivatives
could have become in future Macs if the political situation was that
full support at all levels could have been put to it by multiple
suppliers - the likes of which Intel and AMD put in x86.  It surely must
have much more far reaching potential that x86 could hope to achieve.
If only...

If if if: The mantra of the idealist...

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
0
me41 (1097)
6/8/2005 6:50:16 PM
In article <1gxulqe.pm3lbn19gt97rN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
 ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:

> StormDrain <Liberty@MS-Free.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gxsq5a.10b5zka16ub28N%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
> >  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > 
> > > TravelinMan <Nowhere@spamfree.com> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In article <1gxslhm.10ckjn4t4vp0lN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
> > > >  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > > ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > >At some point, if it hosts Windows perfectly, OS X might just 
> > > > > > >become
> > > > > > >useless. We need a better OS than Windows, not a better Windows 
> > > > > > >than
> > > > > > >Windows.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > That's exactly my worry. If Windows apps can become nearly first 
> > > > > > class
> > > > > > citizens in the MacOS, then the Mac becomes just another PC.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Exactly. and eventually Mac OS would be phased out by the users as an
> > > > > unecessary layer between their computers and their Windows 
> > > > > environment.
> > > > 
> > > > Except for the people who prefer OS X to Windows.
> > > 
> > > There were and are such people who preferred OS/2 to Windows.
> > 
> > OS/2 was a little different (a lot actually). IBM went out of their way
> > to ensure windows compatibility.  They held up version 2.0 until they
> > could build in windows 3.0! support.  They used MS source (as I recall)
> > to put windows 3.1 into the system.  They even marketed a version called
> > "OS/2 for windows".  Their OS/2 compiler was extremely expensive so few
> > people could learn how to write OS/2 apps.  Hence, there were few native
> > apps.  I know I used it for quite a few years, I had some OS/2 apps and
> > lots of DOS apps. 
> 
> I used it until 1998.

Yes, I think I remember you're name from Compuserve. Canopus anyone? :) 
I hung in there until 2000.
 
> > Apple's gone out of their way to get developers on board OS X, free 
> > XCode tools plus most of the unix stuff (PERL, Apache etc).  Some of the
> > biggest names in the business write for Apple, they have a huge 
> > selection of software, despite the x86trolls shrill cries to the 
> > contrary, and they have an established customer base.
> > 
> > I don't see how having VMWare or WINE for one or two "must have" windows
> > apps (which I've never ran into) will hurt the platform.  
> >  
> 
> Unfortunately you only have to see it happening. Once software companies
> figure that Mac users will happily run Windows applications rather than
> not buy an application at all, software companies will see the
> opportunity to save money by maintaining a Windows version only,
> possibly with compatibility tests under Wine/OSX or so.

My only point is that IBM actively supported windows under OS/2.  Apple 
won't.  Any WINE/VMWare solution will be a hack or rather similar to a 
VPC solution.  None of the big software vendors recommended VPC to run 
their programs.  There's so much good OS X software, compared to zilch 
OS/2 software that I can't see this being an OS X killer.

-- 
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
0
Liberty3 (1121)
6/8/2005 7:39:13 PM
In article <1gxuq57.yarz8tdvjsaaN%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > In article <1gxt4qs.1t1n64is5s4g4N%me4@privacy.net>,
> >  me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> > 
<snip>
> > > 
> > > I dunno so much.  Mac ownership is also a state of mind.  Having PPC
> > > somehow made the Mac more desirable for me, even when it wasn't the
> > > fastest.  Somehow, announcing Macs will use x86, feels akin to Ferrari
> > > announcing it's going to start putting Chevvy pushrod V8's in it's cars
> > > from now on.  They'll still be fast, and possibly with even more power,
> > > but It just doesn't feel right somehow.
> > 
> > I bet it'll feel just fine the first time you use a slick little Apple
> > laptop with significantly better performance and battery life than the
> > current models -- that just happens to contain an Intel chip.
> 
> Yes, I know it's something we'll all have to get used to, and I'm sure
> it won't matter one jot to the end user, but from the point of view of
> an idealist such as myself, I'll know that underneath the skin, there
> ticks an ISA that should have been dead and buried 20 years ago before
> it could infest the whole industry.


> And I still can't help but lament at what PPC and future derivatives
> could have become in future Macs if the political situation was that
> full support at all levels could have been put to it by multiple
> suppliers - the likes of which Intel and AMD put in x86.  It surely must
> have much more far reaching potential that x86 could hope to achieve.
> If only...

Yea, but it was an IBM thing, they run off like scared little kids in 
consumer space.  

 
> If if if: The mantra of the idealist...

-- 
SD
"...merely a preponderance of evidence."
0
Liberty3 (1121)
6/8/2005 7:44:11 PM
StormDrain <Liberty@MS-Free.com> wrote:

> In article <1gxulqe.pm3lbn19gt97rN%ajbrehm@gmail.com>,
>  ajbrehm@gmail.com (Andrew J. Brehm) wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > OS/2 was a little different (a lot actually). IBM went out of their way
> > > to ensure windows compatibility.  They held up version 2.0 until they
> > > could build in windows 3.0! support.  They used MS source (as I recall)
> > > to put windows 3.1 into the system.  They even marketed a version called
> > > "OS/2 for windows".  Their OS/2 compiler was extremely expensive so few
> > > people could learn how to write OS/2 apps.  Hence, there were few native
> > > apps.  I know I used it for quite a few years, I had some OS/2 apps and
> > > lots of DOS apps. 
> > 
> > I used it until 1998.
> 
> Yes, I think I remember you're name from Compuserve. Canopus anyone? :)
> I hung in there until 2000.

Possibly. I was quite active. :-)
  
> > > Apple's gone out of their way to get developers on board OS X, free
> > > XCode tools plus most of the unix stuff (PERL, Apache etc).  Some of the
> > > biggest names in the business write for Apple, they have a huge 
> > > selection of software, despite the x86trolls shrill cries to the 
> > > contrary, and they have an established customer base.
> > > 
> > > I don't see how having VMWare or WINE for one or two "must have" windows
> > > apps (which I've never ran into) will hurt the platform.  
> > >  
> > 
> > Unfortunately you only have to see it happening. Once software companies
> > figure that Mac users will happily run Windows applications rather than
> > not buy an application at all, software companies will see the
> > opportunity to save money by maintaining a Windows version only,
> > possibly with compatibility tests under Wine/OSX or so.
> 
> My only point is that IBM actively supported windows under OS/2.  Apple
> won't.  Any WINE/VMWare solution will be a hack or rather similar to a
> VPC solution.  None of the big software vendors recommended VPC to run
> their programs.  There's so much good OS X software, compared to zilch
> OS/2 software that I can't see this being an OS X killer.

Remember that at OS/2's time there was not so much software available
for any platform. I think the ratio is much the same.

-- 
Andrew J. Brehm
Marx Brothers Fan
PowerPC/Macintosh User
Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches
0
ajbrehm (990)
6/8/2005 8:23:56 PM
ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

>>>>Only the present Mac user base would do that, not the switchers 
>>>>*from* Windows that Stevie J wants

>>>That doesn't make any sense. The user experience is the whole *point* 
>>>of the Mac. Anyone switching is interested in the Mac user experience 
>>>essentially by definition.

>>But if their old Windows software works fine on the Mac (i.e., it boots and
>>lets them do the things they originally did, whether or not the interface has
>>changed), are they going to go out and buy new versions? That doesn't make
>>any sense either.

>Over time, sure. Like I keep saying, if you're happy running Windows and 
>Windows apps, you won't buy an Apple machine in the first place.

Well, I'll take a real-life switcher, someone who I personally went out with
while she bought her first Mac, a 1.25GHz mini, last week. (No thanks to
Best Buy, the biggest dopes in the industry, who brought us the wrong RAM
and then was going to charge us $30 to "set it up." I lost my temper right
there in the store. They wouldn't even sell us a Mac keyboard.)

She bought the Mac because her computer was slow, old and plagued with
spyware she couldn't get rid of, and she was tired of it -- a common reason.
Right now we've rigged a KVM and she does Photoshop on the PC still, but
everything else on the Mac (she's migrated to AppleWorks instead of Office).
spyware that she couldn't get off, and was tired of it. But she didn't want
to give up the old apps she already had, like Windows Photoshop and so on.

Now, what do you think she would do if her old Windows Photoshop would run
as is on the Mac? She's happy with her Windows applications, just not with
Windows. And I don't think she's atypical.

>>Because doing so would be a big pain in the butt for little gain (I imagine
>>Windows is hardly as platform-agnostic as OS X is these days). Now that
>>Apple has saved them the effort of having to convert architectures, they can
>>use Windows as is with some glue code to insinuate it into the OS. That's
>>a much easier way to make a "better" VPC and to, from their point of view,
>>streamline its integration into the OS.

[...]
>So, why haven't they done this for Linux, is it's such a great way to 
>undermine non-Windows platforms?

Because Microsoft thinks that Linux will die if they just ignore it (I'm
quite sure they fear legitimizing it if they release software for it --
look at how quick they dropped IE Linux). The Mac, on the other hand, hasn't
died (and is even, at least publicly, supported by them); they can control
it better by making the Intel Mac just another Wintel. And that very
architecture shift has now made it considerably easier to do just that.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/8/2005 10:07:04 PM
In article <42a76bb0$0$91627$bb4e3ad8@newscene.com>,
 Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser@floodgap.com> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:
> 
> >>>>Only the present Mac user base would do that, not the switchers 
> >>>>*from* Windows that Stevie J wants
> 
> >>>That doesn't make any sense. The user experience is the whole *point* 
> >>>of the Mac. Anyone switching is interested in the Mac user experience 
> >>>essentially by definition.
> 
> >>But if their old Windows software works fine on the Mac (i.e., it boots and
> >>lets them do the things they originally did, whether or not the interface 
> >>has
> >>changed), are they going to go out and buy new versions? That doesn't make
> >>any sense either.
> 
> >Over time, sure. Like I keep saying, if you're happy running Windows and 
> >Windows apps, you won't buy an Apple machine in the first place.
> 
> Well, I'll take a real-life switcher, someone who I personally went out with
> while she bought her first Mac, a 1.25GHz mini, last week. (No thanks to
> Best Buy, the biggest dopes in the industry, who brought us the wrong RAM
> and then was going to charge us $30 to "set it up." I lost my temper right
> there in the store. They wouldn't even sell us a Mac keyboard.)
> 
> She bought the Mac because her computer was slow, old and plagued with
> spyware she couldn't get rid of, and she was tired of it -- a common reason.
> Right now we've rigged a KVM and she does Photoshop on the PC still, but
> everything else on the Mac (she's migrated to AppleWorks instead of Office).
> spyware that she couldn't get off, and was tired of it. But she didn't want
> to give up the old apps she already had, like Windows Photoshop and so on.
> 
> Now, what do you think she would do if her old Windows Photoshop would run
> as is on the Mac? She's happy with her Windows applications, just not with
> Windows. And I don't think she's atypical.

If the Windows compatibility environment is good enough to run every 
major app you might want to throw at it, it's also good enough to run 
malware, and then she *definitely* wouldn't want it.

> >>Because doing so would be a big pain in the butt for little gain (I imagine
> >>Windows is hardly as platform-agnostic as OS X is these days). Now that
> >>Apple has saved them the effort of having to convert architectures, they 
> >>can
> >>use Windows as is with some glue code to insinuate it into the OS. That's
> >>a much easier way to make a "better" VPC and to, from their point of view,
> >>streamline its integration into the OS.
> 
> [...]
> >So, why haven't they done this for Linux, is it's such a great way to 
> >undermine non-Windows platforms?
> 
> Because Microsoft thinks that Linux will die if they just ignore it (I'm
> quite sure they fear legitimizing it if they release software for it --
> look at how quick they dropped IE Linux). The Mac, on the other hand, hasn't
> died (and is even, at least publicly, supported by them); they can control
> it better by making the Intel Mac just another Wintel. And that very
> architecture shift has now made it considerably easier to do just that.

I don't really think so.

-- 
"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
0
znu (10395)
6/8/2005 10:27:43 PM
References trimmed.

ZnU <znu@fake.invalid> writes:

>>Now, what do you think she would do if her old Windows Photoshop would run
>>as is on the Mac? She's happy with her Windows applications, just not with
>>Windows. And I don't think she's atypical.

>If the Windows compatibility environment is good enough to run every 
>major app you might want to throw at it, it's also good enough to run 
>malware, and then she *definitely* wouldn't want it.

On this point, we're in agreement, sort of. I hope that someone realizes this
(and the other drawbacks of allowing Winapps to intermingle with the MacOS)
and determines that making Windows applications first-class citizens on an
Intel Mac is a Very Bad Idea, and won't do it.

However, my worry is that they either won't figure it out, or will gloss
over it, and there will no longer be a sandbox like there is now.

>>Because Microsoft thinks that Linux will die if they just ignore it (I'm
>>quite sure they fear legitimizing it if they release software for it --
>>look at how quick they dropped IE Linux). The Mac, on the other hand, hasn't
>>died (and is even, at least publicly, supported by them); they can control
>>it better by making the Intel Mac just another Wintel. And that very
>>architecture shift has now made it considerably easier to do just that.

>I don't really think so.

We'll see.

--
      Cameron Kaiser * ckaiser@floodgap.com * posting with a Commodore 128
                personal page: http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/
  ** Computer Workshops: games, productivity software and more for C64/128! **
                  ** http://www.armory.com/%7Espectre/cwi/ **
0
ckaiser (667)
6/9/2005 2:33:32 AM

Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> For the following assume that Intel-based Macs come out this time next
> year or earlier.
>
> 1. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac immidiately, just to have one and
> check it out and be prepared?
>

Nope, not immediately.



> 2. Will you buy an Intel-based Mac instead of a PowerPC-based Mac when
> it is time to replace the current Mac you use?
>

Yes



> 3. Will you buy a PowerPC-based Mac when it is time to replace the
> current Mac you use?
>

No.  That would be quite foolhardy.


> 4. Will you use one kind of Mac for a notebook and another for a
> desktop?
>

Nope.

0
pepesmythe (185)
6/9/2005 3:01:06 AM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

When is a Mac not a Mac?
This was posted in a forum recently and I thought it brought up some very interesting points relating to the Eula. For reference: http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showtopic=105546 ------ This question is related to licensing OS X on a machine. The EULA says it has to be an Apple computer, before the Apple License will apply, which means Apple will only support OS X on Apple machines. So, I'm wondering, when is a machine considered an Apple Mac, for the purposes of Licensing and recieving support? Say I buy a Mac from Apple. Then the hard drive fails, and I replace that with an ...

Mac to mac
I just remembered these groups and wondered if someone here could tell me whether what I'd like to do is possible. (NO ONE around here knows anything about Macs) I have a G4 that was the top of the line in 1998. It will die one of these days. It's currently running OS 9.2.2. Someone else(who now lives far away) installed the internal modem, SCSI for my scanner, and my floppy drive (so I didn't have to go through hundreds of them for the bits and pieces I might someday want again). I still have the floppies and a number of Zips, all of which this computer can read. Install...

To Mac or not to Mac?
What ho, pre-pressers! Long time no post, or view, come to that. No doubt some of you will remember me as I see that many of same crowd are **STILL** here after all these years. Grettings to Aandi, Ted, Lee, Allen...well, to you all, not forgetting Mr Shagnasty, who I am gratified can still find something to say after all this time. Right, greetings over, down to brass tacks. My early retirement plan has sadly fallen through and I find myself back at the coal face possessed of some pretty antideluvian equipment with which to earn a crust for the Tree family. So I'm looking for **SE...

Help! iSync mac to mac
Am I right in saying that with iSync, if you want to sync 2 macs together (address book, iCal etc.) the only way to do this is via a ..Mac account, even if those computers are sitting not 5 feet from each other, both Airport equipped? If this is the case, I've never heard anything so ridiculous. Is this just part of another apple scam to get more money out of us? Does anyone know if this is indeed the case, and can you recommend any other sync software out there? I'm setting up an iMac, eMac and powerbook g4 for a friend's office, all running OSX Panther, and you'd think basi...

Office:Mac / Intel Macs
Hi everybody. Please forgive me if this material has been previously covered. However, I would like to get some information from trustworthy sources, and I think this is one place to start. Basically, I am wondering about the performance of Office:Mac on Intel Macs (in Rosetta). Is it responsive? Please let me know how it runs, with as much detail is warranted. I'm considering an Intel Mac, but there's no way I'm going to buy one if I have to use my PowerPC MS Office in emulation that slogs along. Thanks much for your help. Brad wrote: > Hi everybody. > > Please forgive me if this material has been previously covered. > However, I would like to get some information from trustworthy sources, > and I think this is one place to start. > > Basically, I am wondering about the performance of Office:Mac on Intel > Macs (in Rosetta). > > Is it responsive? > > Please let me know how it runs, with as much detail is warranted. I'm > considering an Intel Mac, but there's no way I'm going to buy one if I > have to use my PowerPC MS Office in emulation that slogs along. > > Thanks much for your help. I have Office:Mac 2004 on a MacBook Pro (1.83/15"/1 Gig Ram). Word and Excel seem to work fine, though they are a bit slower launching than they are on my PowerMac G5/2.0 or on my iMac G5/2.0. My only complaint is about PowerPoint. Powerpoint 2004 is much slower on both my G5s than PowerpointX was. This is...

Anyone got Mac classic Mac emulation running well on their Intel Mac?
Despite switching to DOSBox and VMware's Fusion with WinXP to handle my classic gaming needs, there are still a bunch of classic MacOS games I'm desperate to run on my Intel Mac. I've tried and failed to get Ballisk and SheepShaver running. Mini vMac runs but has a nasty, nasty habbit of corrupting disk images opened in both it and OSX. *sigh* Has anyone had any sucess? Why is classic Mac emulation so way behind other emulation efforts? With Amiga emulation running it's surprising classic Mac emulation is so far behind :-( TIA, Jamie Kahn Genet -- If you&...

bmp-mac, mac and xmms-mac ports
Hello, I can't find these in the ports collections, so i've downloaded and compiled mac and xmms-mac successfully and have confirmed that they work on FreeBSD. I was looking for an APE (Monkey Audio) plug-in for XMMS in the ports collection but wasn't able to find one. I had a bit of trouble with compiling xmms-mac to start off with. The compilation would fail with the following: g++ -I/usr/X11R6/include -I/usr/X11R6/include/xmms -I/usr/local/include/gtk12 -I/usr/local/include/glib12 -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/X11R6/include -s -O3 -Wall -pedantic -DBUILD_CROSS_PLATFORM -g -O2 -o fileinfo fileinfo.o -Wl,-E -L/usr/X11R6/lib -L/usr/local/lib -lgtk-12 -lgdk-12 -lgmodule-12 -lglib-12 /usr/local/lib/libintl.so /usr/local/lib/libiconv.so -lXi -lXext -lX11 -lm -lxmms /usr/lib/libmac.so -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib -Wl,--rpath -Wl,/usr/local/lib /usr/local/lib/libgthread-12.so.3: undefined reference to `pthread_cond_timedwait' *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/net147/xmms-mac-0.3.1/src. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/net147/xmms-mac-0.3.1. *** Error code 1 Stop in /usr/home/net147/xmms-mac-0.3.1. However i've managed to fix this by deleting the extracts files, re-extracting the files again, adding -lpthread to the configure.in file and then running autoconf to regenerate the configure script before compiling. # diff starts here --- configure.in.old Sun Dec 10 14:24:01 2006 +++ configure.in Sun Dec 10 14:24:...

It's a Mac, Mac, Mac World
I wonder how the Windows users would like my (ab)normal Microsoft-free world: My business: all Mac, no PCs. My dentist, family physician and urologist are all Mac. No PCs. Went to Sir Speedy today for more bus. cards and some binding: all Mac (no surprise there). My daughter's three new college room mates have emailed her. Two have PowerBooks and one has an eMac. (She has a G5 iMac.) I never even see a PC unless I am at the public library or a store using a Windows POS unit. It never was intentional. I don't scout a place to see what frickin' computer they use. Just happened. Kind of weird. -- Arf! Old CSMAer Nice! At work I'm stuck on Windows, plus at home my roommate and girlfrield both use Windows. Good thing is I have my ibook at work and both my roommate and gf are getting Macs after their Dell's are paid off. They use Mac's at work and see how my PowerMac at home works while their PeeCee's hose daily. They hate Windows now :) So i'm getting there :) Alex "OldCSMAer" <olddog@kennelsINVALID.com> wrote in message news:olddog-F4AC87.15141003082005@newsclstr01.news.prodigy.com... >I wonder how the Windows users would like my (ab)normal Microsoft-free > world: > > My business: all Mac, no PCs. My dentist, family physician and > urologist are all Mac. No PCs. > > Went to Sir Speedy today for more bus. cards and some binding: all Mac > (no surprise there). > > My dau...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio P
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT' gr ...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT' gr , www 'DOT' 20000plusdvdsandcds 'DOT' tk , ( please substitute 'AT' with '@' , and 'DOT' with '.' ) , ola@mail.gr, ola3@mailbox.gr, www.20000plusdvdsandcds.tk --------------------------------------- 2007-10-15 MacDrive 7.0.10 Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac (1 cd) 2007-10-02 MakeMusic Finale 2008 for Mac (3 cd) 2007/10/02 Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID 1DVD 2007-10-05 Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 1.2 for Mac ------------------------------------------------------- 2007/09/29 Autodesk Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac (1 dvd) 2007/09/25 FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac (1 dvd) 2007/09/14 Sorenson Squeeze Compression Suite 4.5.3 for Mac 2007/09/09 Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel (1 dvd) MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac (1 cd) Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac (1 cd) Vertus Fluid Mask 3.0.1 for Mac -------------------------------...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio P #2
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/ MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT' gr , ola3 'AT' mailbox 'DOT' gr ...

When is a Mac no longer a Mac?
OK, so Apple's going to go to Intel CPUs. Now Macs are no longer differentiated by a slow clock and superior instruction set--we've got the same hackjob clusterfuck on speed PCs have been using for decades now. And over the last few years Apple's gone away from SCSI, NuBus, ADB, Localtalk, etc. And PCs have picked up USB, dropped floppies, and colored their cases. The hardware's basically merging between the two platforms. On the software side, the classic MacOS is gone, replaced by Unixy stuff. And like it or not, higher up on the UI level lots of Windows-li...

Mac Miail on .mac
I have my own domain name. Is there a way to get msil under .mac to set this as the reply to address. It seems that I am forced to use the @mac address but I could well be missing something. Thanks Colin Countryman wrote: > I have my own domain name. Is there a way to get msil under .mac to set this > as the reply to address. It seems that I am forced to use the @mac address > but I could well be missing something. > > Thanks > Colin Open a new Mail message - press Command-Alt-R to display the Reply-To field. Chu -- chuenginsberg at mac dot com On Sun, 21 Jan 2...

mac to mac connection
Hi, PBG3 400 OS 10.3 I connect a crossover cable between my PB, and other macs running OS9, and can not mount see the other mac on my PB. Have followed the Help, but must be doing something wrong somewhere. I can however see/connect to my PB from the peripheral mac via the Chooser. I have not been able to connect to windoze machines either, but maybe that will rsolve if I can get mac to mac sharing happening. Can someone suggest what I may be overlooking or a relevant site... ? thanks indeed Chris Brown Neurosurgery University of Adelaide In article <400da705$1@yorrell.saard.net>, Chris Brown <cbrown@medicine.adelaide.edu.au> wrote: > Hi, > > > PBG3 400 OS 10.3 > > I connect a crossover cable between my PB, and other macs running OS9, > and can not mount see the other mac on my PB. Have followed the Help, > but must be doing something wrong somewhere. I can however see/connect > to my PB from the peripheral mac via the Chooser. > > I have not been able to connect to windoze machines either, but maybe > that will rsolve if I can get mac to mac sharing happening. > > Can someone suggest what I may be overlooking or a relevant site... ? > > > thanks indeed > > Chris Brown > Neurosurgery > University of Adelaide > Chris, things won't necessarily connect automagically. First, you have to turn on "File Sharing" on both machines. If you have an OS 9 box, when y...

MAC to MAC connectivity
Hi, As part of a design that I'm investigating, I am looking at connecting a number of FPGA based MACs to a dedicated broadcom switch chip. The difficulty with this is that to interface both chips, I need to have two closely coupled and redundant PHY . Is it possible to connect two MAC (SGMII) directly point-to-point, bypassing the PHY completely? Or is it necessary to have at least some PHY functionality, even if it is a point to point link? Kind regards, Stephen Steve wrote: > Hi, > > As part of a design that I'm investigating, I am looking at connecting > a number...

Mac to MAc Firewire
Hey all Looking for some help. I am trying to use a 6-6pin 1394 cable to connect two iBooks together and transfer some large files. iBook 1 dual USB 'white' iBook OS 9.2 iBook 2 G4 OSx 10.2 I boot iBook 1 into 'target drive' mode and get the firewire icon dancing about the screen then connect it to iBook 2 but the drive does not appear on the desktop. I have tried all combinations of rebooting/ connecting before and after rebooting but nothing seams to work. When the firewire is plugged in the target disk makes a short noise then nothing the host does not appear to react at ...

networking mac to mac???
Hello, Can someone out there tell me the best (easy) way to network a ibook running os.9??? possibly to a new imac running osx 5wak <rosscoism@gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Can someone out there tell me the best (easy) way to network a > ibook running os.9??? possibly to a new imac running osx Put an ethernet cable between them, enable tcp/ip and file sharing on one and log on from the other, seems to be what you are asking for? And you do not need a cross-over cable between modern Macs. -- /Jon For contact info, run the following in Terminal: echo 361993718603049801070734...

Mac-to-Mac VPN?
Years ago, I set up a Mac network (under OS9) with a VPN router and some software on a remote PowerBook that allowed VPN access. I'm not terribly familiar with OSX yet, but I understand that much of this functionality is now built in. Can anybody steer me in the right direction as far as hardware, software and configuration? Here's the setup I envision: - Small LAN running two Macs and a printer with a DSL connection through a router. - Remote PowerBook connected to the net varyingly with dial-up, DSL (wired), and AirPort. - Use the PowerBook to securely connect to at l...

MAC to MAC over Internet
Hi All, First I will tell you that I am not a MAC user or owner so please be patient :) I have a friend who runs a small business and they have two MAC computers in the office that are networked together and share files. The main MAC has approx 20,000 files that they share and update. One of the people will be moving away and they want to be able to connect over the Internet to the main MAC and share the files just like they do in the office today. They need to be able to have the master files on the main MAC in the office and allow the other person to easily access and update the master ...

PPC Macs better than Intel Macs.
That is truly sad, The obsolete model is better than the brand new technology. Why do these fools keep buying? In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>, "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote: > That is truly sad, The obsolete model is better than the brand new > technology. Why do these fools keep buying? It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using them, of course. -- "The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message news:znu-EF9B57.12001407092009@Port80.Individual.NET... > In article <8jYom.201124$vp.26634@newsfe12.iad>, > "Jimmyjohn" <igwif@verizon.com> wrote: > >> That is truly sad, The obsolete model is better than the brand new >> technology. Why do these fools keep buying? > > It was inevitable that Apple's switch to Intel would, sooner or later, > drive the trolls to insisting that PPC processors were better. Despite > the fact that they spent years arguing against this when Apple was using > them, of course. Well JO, Fa-groon a...

Matlab on Intel Mac
Hi, With the Intel macs, one can run Mac and Windows simultaneously by using either "parallels" or "crossover". In such a case, would anyone know if it would be better to install Matlab under Windows or Mac X11? Thanks. Suresh "Suresh Narayanan" <sureshn@aps.anl.gov> wrote in message news:ef5acf5.-1@webcrossing.raydaftYaTP... > Hi, > > With the Intel macs, one can run Mac and Windows simultaneously by > using either "parallels" or "crossover". In such a case, would anyone > know if it would be better to install Matlab...

Mac advocacy again: Springer changes to Mac
Here's a bit of Mac advocacy for the US Independence Day. http://tinyurl.com/68ajad =46rom the article: In a YouTube video, posted below the fold, CEO Mathias D=F6pfner lists four reasons for the change: Most of the company=92s layout work was already being done on Macs Macs are more user friendly than other computers Apple creates the most elegant computers Macs are cheaper to buy and easier to maintain than they were in the past -- Dave Fritzinger Honolulu, HI Dave Fritzinger wrote: > Here's a bit of Mac advocacy for the US Independence Day. > > http://tinyurl.com/68ajad > > From the article: > > In a YouTube video, posted below the fold, CEO Mathias D�pfner lists > four reasons for the change: > > Most of the company�s layout work was already being done on Macs > Macs are more user friendly than other computers > Apple creates the most elegant computers > Macs are cheaper to buy and easier to maintain than they were in the > past > -- > Dave Fritzinger > Honolulu, HI It also said they'll be running OS X, Windows Vista and Windows XP on these machines, so basically they have just added an additonal OS to support. "Apple creates the most elegant computers". Wow, I'm glad he's not the CEO of my company. Steve In article <baidnd-wU5XcKPPVnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com>, Steve de Mena <steve@stevedemena.com> wrote: > Dave Fritzinger wrote: > > Here's a bit...

Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, VIENNA INSTRUMENTS VIENNA SYMPHONIC LIBRARIES, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac
Microsoft Office 2008 for Mac, MacDrive 7.0.10, Apple Mac OSX Tiger 10.4.10 for Mac Intel, VIENNA INSTRUMENTS VIENNA SYMPHONIC LIBRARIES, Propellerheads.Reason.v4.0.HYBRID, Maya Unlimited 2008 for Mac, FXpansion GURU 1.1.280 for Mac, Roxio Popcorn 3 for Mac, MapleSoft Maple 11.01.303882 Pro for Mac, other Mac Stuff CDs, A to Z, updated 2007/10/15, and Win & Mac programs, 'WinMac', 'PC/MaC', 'Win-Mac', 'Multi', 'Multi-Platform', 'MultiFormat', 'MULTIOS', 'HYBRID' please send e-mail to : ola 'AT' mail 'DOT...

Web resources about - Poll (Intel Macs, PowerPC Macs) - comp.sys.mac.advocacy

PowerPC G4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
PowerPC G4 is a designation used by Apple Computer to describe a fourth generation of 32-bit PowerPC microprocessors . Apple has applied this ...

Defections to ARM hurt PowerPC, MIPS
The PowerPC is best known for powering old Mac computers, while MIPS processors were in the first PlayStation, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft ...

Latest Snow Leopard security update breaks popular PowerPC apps like Quicken
As part of the Mac OS X 10.7.3 update released earlier this week, Security Update 2012-001 [release notes] for Snow Leopard broke compatibility ...

Apple and IBM Introduce the PowerPC G5 Processor
WWDC 2003, San Francisco—June 23, 2003—Apple® and IBM together today introduced the world’s first 64-bit desktop processor—the PowerPC G5. Based ...

P.A. Semi’s major PowerPC announcement, and looking back at The Switch - Ars Technica
P.A. Semi licenses PowerPC from IBM and does what Moto/Freescale could not. …

Firefox 3.6 likely the last for PowerPC Macs
... Read this article by Stephen Shankland on CNET News. The current version of Firefox will likely be the end of the road for people using PowerPC ...

Snow Leopard name all about appeasing PowerPC customers
Apple's Snow Leopard announcement was a bit of a surprise to many. Not just because the new OS isn't going to support PowerPC or that there weren't ...

Apple Drops iTunes, Old Software Updates for PowerPC Macs
iTunes icons through the years. PowerPC-based Macs have long been considered dead and buried by Apple, but the company just put a few more nails ...

AMCC drives to high end of embedded PowerPC market
... drive the company into high-end embedded markets. SAN JOSE, Calif. Applied Micro Circuits Corp. (Sunnyvale, Calif.) debuts today a new PowerPC ...

Snow Leopard to drop PowerPC support?
PowerPC users, your days could be numbered. According to an alleged screenshot of Snow Leopard's system requirements, only Intel CPUs will get ...

Resources last updated: 3/8/2016 2:38:58 PM