I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
technology.

Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
jeaopardy and danger.

The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

abpp <abpp@mail.com> wrote: 
>   I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
>   resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
>   platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
>   old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
>   Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
>   because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
>   fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
>   technology.
>   
>   Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
>   Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
>   x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
>   Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
>   jeaopardy and danger.
>   
>   The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
>   Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

I'm still waiting for Alec Baldwin to move out of the USA.   

Will you leave Usenet if Jobs doesn't resign? Please say yes.

In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> technology.
> 
> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> jeaopardy and danger.
> 
> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.
> 

Try thinking for a change. While the PPC has more legs, the fact that 
IBM can't supply them, isn't interested in higher clock speeds and isn't 
speeding towards a cooler running chip for laptops was the death blow 
and not something Apple could control and SJ either. Out of SJ's 
hands...if you think he was going to bully IBM, you're sadly wrong.

-- 
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
 expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
abpp <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker.

I am a true Mac user and I don't care who makes the chip inside my Mac,
as long as it's not Microsoft.

I don't know how you come to your conclusion that the Mac platform will
be destroyed if an Intel chip is used instead of an IBM one.

Paul

-- 
 Paul Anderson
  OpenVMS Engineering
  Hewlett-Packard Company

On 17 Jun 2005 11:06:57 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

Hey, trollboy!  As an Apple Shareholder and Mac user at home, I love
the move and look to even better performance of Apple's stock in the
future. 




******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
 my testimony. The events I have recorded should
 not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

                              -James Nachtwey-
                         http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
abpp <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker.

You need this:

<http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html>

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~

abpp:
> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs.

How about if I just *PLONK* you, instead?

-- 
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate 
> resignation of Steve Jobs.

Oh, go buzz off, troll.  You obviously don't know what the f you're 
talking about.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

Dave Balderstone <dave@n_o_t_t_h_i_s.balderstone.ca> wrote: 
>   abpp <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
>   
>   > I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
>   > resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
>   > platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
>   > old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
>   > Apple as a hardware maker.
>   
>   You need this:
>   
>   <http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html>

Mine has rabbit ears!

Paul Anderson <paul.anderson@hp.com> wrote:

> In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> abpp <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> > resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> > platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> > old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> > Apple as a hardware maker.
> 
> I am a true Mac user and I don't care who makes the chip inside my Mac,
> as long as it's not Microsoft.
> 
> I don't know how you come to your conclusion that the Mac platform will
> be destroyed if an Intel chip is used instead of an IBM one.

Actually, it's probably on a par with finding out that PPC chips were
made by IBM.

Intel have never been the baddies here, just MicroSoft.

-- 
Andy Hewitt **  FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
(updated Feb 21 2005)

Down with the Jobs, go with the Woz!

Apple lost its way years ago. I dumped them in 1995,
when Linux became usable. Never looked back.

Although the NeXT box was very cool. But Steve
screwed that up too by refusing to sell to students,
academics, and individuals. He insisted on selling
only to businesses and in bulk deals to colleges.

OS/X is nowhere near as smooth as NeXT OS.
What is accomplished using only a 68030 processor
was amazing.

"abpp" <abpp@mail.com> writes:

>I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
>resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
>platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
>old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
>Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
>because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
>fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
>technology.

It's not what Jobs wants, but what the user community wants.  The
user community wants a G5 PowerBook and faster G5 towers.  IBM could
not produce the chips that the Mac community wanted.

While I'm not thrilled with the x86 switch, but I don't see where
Apple had much choice.

>Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
>Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
>x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
>Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
>jeaopardy and danger.

Sticking with a processor line that could not meet the demands of the
user community would kill Apple faster than any switch to Intel chips.

>The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
>Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

OS X is not going to run on generic x86 hardware.

 -Stephen
-- 
  Space Age Cybernomad                                   Stephen Adams
             malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

Eight to five it will. Indeed from what I understand it does right now.

In article <1119061621.198598.78750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, 
calcerise@hotmail.com says...
> Eight to five it will. 

It will what?

> Indeed from what I understand it does right now.


It does what right now?

Zero-context in your follow up means we get to guess what you
are replying to above.

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
   I just care about success." --Steve Jobs

Dude get a damn life.  You know, get away from the computer and go 
outside?  Get a real girlfriend, and not one of those blowup dolls?  
The things people post here...it's amazing common sense hasn't killed 
you yet.

All that "IBM cannot supply" crap is just that, crap. IBM was being
offered more business with the consoles and obviously they
will put more effort on those chips. IBM offered Apple/Jobs to move
to one of those PPC chips (that are faster and better designed), but
Jobs
in his infinite arrogance didn't want to use "the other guys'" chips.
Well,
you know what, now he will use THE OTHER IDIOTS' chips (x86). Screw
Jobs!!
We all trusted him and he betrayed the Mac. The Mac now is nothing but
a
PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
FULLY commited to the PPC!



Jim Polaski wrote:
> In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> > resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> > platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> > old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> > Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> > because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> > fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> > technology.
> >
> > Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> > Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> > x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> > Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> > jeaopardy and danger.
> >
> > The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> > Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.
> >
>
> Try thinking for a change. While the PPC has more legs, the fact that
> IBM can't supply them, isn't interested in higher clock speeds and isn't
> speeding towards a cooler running chip for laptops was the death blow
> and not something Apple could control and SJ either. Out of SJ's
> hands...if you think he was going to bully IBM, you're sadly wrong.
>
> --
> Regards,
> JP
> "The measure of a man is what he will do while
>  expecting that he will get nothing in return!"

You don't see it??!!

Now the Mac will be nothing but a PC with an Apple OS!!

Let's take a look at the possibilities once Intel is inside:

1) What about Macs running Windows (possible even after what Jobs said)

2) PCs running Mac OS (as you know they will)

3) PC clone makers making Macs-like clones (possible even after what
Jobs said)

4) Apple lossing money when people don't see the need to buy an Apple
Mac
when they can get a PC that runs Mac OS (as you know they will)

5) Macs suffering in graphics processing without AltiVec (as you know)

6) Mac programming code becoming more bloated because Intel code is
more
complex

etc, etc, etc...

Need more??



Paul Anderson wrote:
> In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> abpp <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> > resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> > platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> > old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> > Apple as a hardware maker.
>
> I am a true Mac user and I don't care who makes the chip inside my Mac,
> as long as it's not Microsoft.
>
> I don't know how you come to your conclusion that the Mac platform will
> be destroyed if an Intel chip is used instead of an IBM one.
>
> Paul
>
> --
>  Paul Anderson
>   OpenVMS Engineering
>   Hewlett-Packard Company

Intel is Microsoft and Microsoft is Intel. They have lived a symbiotic
relation for so long that now there is no difference! Every Intel chip
made in the last 7 years was basically co-design by Microsoft thanks to
the Microsoft Windows Hardware Engineering Conferences. Can you imagine
the access Microsoft and its cronies (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.) will
have
to the Mac internals to poop on!!




Andy Hewitt wrote:
> Paul Anderson <paul.anderson@hp.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > abpp <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> > > resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> > > platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> > > old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> > > Apple as a hardware maker.
> >
> > I am a true Mac user and I don't care who makes the chip inside my Mac,
> > as long as it's not Microsoft.
> >
> > I don't know how you come to your conclusion that the Mac platform will
> > be destroyed if an Intel chip is used instead of an IBM one.
>
> Actually, it's probably on a par with finding out that PPC chips were
> made by IBM.
>
> Intel have never been the baddies here, just MicroSoft.
>
> --
> Andy Hewitt **  FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
> Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
> http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
> (updated Feb 21 2005)

Let see how much that stock will worth in 4 years when Apple
realize that they can no longer sell hardware but only some
software.


John A. Stovall wrote:
> On 17 Jun 2005 11:06:57 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
>
> Hey, trollboy!  As an Apple Shareholder and Mac user at home, I love
> the move and look to even better performance of Apple's stock in the
> future.
>
>
>
>
> ******************************************************
>
> "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
>  my testimony. The events I have recorded should
>  not be forgotten and must not be repeated."
>
>                               -James Nachtwey-
>                          http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

YEAH!!


Thundercleets wrote:
> Down with the Jobs, go with the Woz!

DAMN RIGHT!



yarmfelder@yahoo.com wrote:
> Apple lost its way years ago. I dumped them in 1995,
> when Linux became usable. Never looked back.
>
> Although the NeXT box was very cool. But Steve
> screwed that up too by refusing to sell to students,
> academics, and individuals. He insisted on selling
> only to businesses and in bulk deals to colleges.
>
> OS/X is nowhere near as smooth as NeXT OS.
> What is accomplished using only a 68030 processor
> was amazing.

Well, dude, if you had time to read my posting and bother to reply then
I'm not the only one who needs to get a life, ah!



Tim wrote:
> Dude get a damn life.  You know, get away from the computer and go
> outside?  Get a real girlfriend, and not one of those blowup dolls?
> The things people post here...it's amazing common sense hasn't killed
> you yet.

"abpp" <abpp@mail.com> writes:

>I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
>resignation of Steve Jobs.

Request denied. (and, FWIW, I've been a Mac user and developer since 1984.

> His stupid decision to change the Mac
>platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
>old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
>Apple as a hardware maker.

The PPC G5 was a great machine, no doubt about it.  Apple's customers 
couldn't get enough of them.  The trouble was, *neither could Apple*!

Apple probably left a billion dollars or more on the table every quarter
since the G5 launched, because IBM couldn't meet their delivery schedules.

> Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
>because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
>fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
>technology.

I know this is hard for you to understand, but take it from someone who
had the same reaction (although in my case, I had it in 1993).

Once you load up OS X on an Intel box, it's just like the OS X you're used
to.  (With one exception..  It's faster.)

>Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
>Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
>x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth.

It was true.  In the last five years though, Intel caught up.

>Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
>jeaopardy and danger.

The platform is fine.  In fact, it's in the best shape it's been in for
a decade.

>The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
>Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

Dude, you have *way* too much of your ego wrapped up in an implementation
detail.  Try to work it out in therapy.

-jcr

abpp wrote:
> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> technology.
> 
> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> jeaopardy and danger.
> 
> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.
> 
mmm....i don't understand the alarmism about jobs' decision. ok x86 are 
toys compared to powerpc, but the reality is the new macs will be out in 
2006, and jobs don't think to use x86 in mac machines, I suspect the new 
macs will use Itanium processors (the PowerMacs surely will be big 
workstations with 64 bit Itanium 2)....the things are: IBM is working on 
Cell, Cell is an architecture specifically made for big machines and not 
for laptops so it is impossible to use them on low end machines.

the best part of apple is Mac OS and the perfect interaction between OS 
and hardware, this interaction will become much evident and necessary 
with Itanium, because of its dynamic architecture......

windows will run on macs, but it is very improbable Mac OS will run on 
PCs.....Apple and Intel are joint-working on DRM and others means to 
help OS to recognize hardware on which it is running......

and finally I think a lot people (I surely) will buy an Apple Mac for 
"serious computing" leaving PCs as children's toys......

IBM is incapable of serious PowerPC improvements and Cell is just too 
complex and too multimedia oriented to be used on a general purpose 
computer......Itanium instead has a lot of nice capabilities and around 
300 internal registers.....it is just a supercomputer on a chip, so I 
think Jobs is making the right thing

abpp wrote:
[snipped]

> PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
> FULLY commited to the PPC!
> 
[snipped]

When you've finished wiping the saliva off your chin, would you care to 
list the companies apart from Apple that are shipping PPC based personal 
computers.

Andy

On 17 Jun 2005 11:06:57 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote, in part:

>Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
>because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
>fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
>technology.

That would make sense _if_ the disparity weren't, clearly, going to get
worse in the future - much worse.

If Apple were to stay with the PowerPC, eventually it would become a PDA
maker, leaving the computer field to Microsoft Windows-based computers.

The PowerPC may be a more elegant architecture (but like the Itanium, it
wastes RAM on bulky programs; a clean CISC architecture like the 68000's
is what is really best IMO) but what PowerPC chips one can buy is,
unfortunately, a key to what kind of PowerPC-based computers one can
make.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

I think that Steve Jobs is intoxicated by the iPod success.
He wish to become a new Dell computer cie.
People buy Mac because Mac computer sit at top.
MacTel is (now) a computer just like any other PC.

Steve kill the Mac.

On 17 Jun 2005 11:06:57 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

>
>Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
>Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
>x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
>Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
>jeaopardy and danger.

And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.  Sucker.

On 18 Jun 2005 00:03:50 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

>you know what, now he will use THE OTHER IDIOTS' chips (x86). Screw
>Jobs!!
>We all trusted him and he betrayed the Mac. The Mac now is nothing but
>a
>PC with an Apple OS.

At least now the laptops won't have cripped CPUs.

On 18 Jun 2005 00:15:46 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

>5) Macs suffering in graphics processing without AltiVec (as you know)
>
>6) Mac programming code becoming more bloated because Intel code is
>more

Yout last two points here were never true to begin with.

On 18 Jun 2005 00:27:03 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

>Let see how much that stock will worth in 4 years when Apple
>realize that they can no longer sell hardware but only some
>software.

More than the stock you own.  


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
 my testimony. The events I have recorded should
 not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

                              -James Nachtwey-
                         http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> abpp wrote:
> [snipped]
> 
> > PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
> > FULLY commited to the PPC!
> > 
> [snipped]
> 
> When you've finished wiping the saliva off your chin, would you care to
> list the companies apart from Apple that are shipping PPC based personal
> computers.
> 

Genesi

Eyetech




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

Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>abpp wrote:
>>[snipped]
>>
>>
>>>PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
>>>FULLY commited to the PPC!
>>>
>>
>>[snipped]
>>
>>When you've finished wiping the saliva off your chin, would you care to
>>list the companies apart from Apple that are shipping PPC based personal
>>computers.
>>
> 
> 
> Genesi

OK, I'll pay that one.

> 
> Eyetech
> 

Hmm, looks a bit Amiga ish to me. Does it run a mainstream OS?

Andy

Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:

> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>abpp wrote:
> >>[snipped]
> >>
> >>
> >>>PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
> >>>FULLY commited to the PPC!
> >>>
> >>
> >>[snipped]
> >>
> >>When you've finished wiping the saliva off your chin, would you care to
> >>list the companies apart from Apple that are shipping PPC based personal
> >>computers.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Genesi
> 
> OK, I'll pay that one.

Ok.

> > 
> > Eyetech
> > 
> 
> Hmm, looks a bit Amiga ish to me. Does it run a mainstream OS?
> 

They apparently support Linux.

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

In article <1119054002.845476.231190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
 yarmfelder@yahoo.com wrote:

> Apple lost its way years ago. I dumped them in 1995,
> when Linux became usable. Never looked back.
> 
> Although the NeXT box was very cool. But Steve
> screwed that up too by refusing to sell to students,
> academics, and individuals. He insisted on selling
> only to businesses and in bulk deals to colleges.
> 
> OS/X is nowhere near as smooth as NeXT OS.
> What is accomplished using only a 68030 processor
> was amazing.

  The company I worked for at the time bought a second-generation NeXT 
when they came out, and I was the one who got to play with it.  In its 
time, it was an amazing, wonderful system; years ahead of Windows and 
MacOS of the time.

  But that was many years ago.  Both Windows and MacOS have continued to 
be developed, and NeXTStep has not, at least not in that guise.

  It seems to me that MacOS X is very close to what NeXTSTep would have 
become, if NeXT had stayed in the business, and continued to develop 
NeXTStep to this day.

-- 
I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email
address.  Remove the string "HatesSpam" from this email
address before you use it:  BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to

Ever wonder what it'd be like to be a blood-sucking parasite?
http://tinyurl.com/7wxk

In article <1119078946.316175.259200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> You don't see it??!!
> 
> Now the Mac will be nothing but a PC with an Apple OS!!
> 
> Let's take a look at the possibilities once Intel is inside:
> 
> 1) What about Macs running Windows (possible even after what Jobs said)

I doubt there will be much interest. Running Windows in a virtual 
machine will probably be fairly popular, booting it natively not so 
much. It might not even be possible, depending on how different Apple's 
hardware is. They've said they won't deliberately prevent it, but I 
doubt they'll take any steps to make sure it works either.

> 2) PCs running Mac OS (as you know they will)

Sure, h4x0r types will get hacked versions of OS X running on generic 
x86 hardware, probably. Won't have much impact on Apple's bottom line.

> 3) PC clone makers making Macs-like clones (possible even after what
> Jobs said)

Nothing can be Mac-like without OS X, and there's no indication that 
Apple will let anyone else ship it.

> 4) Apple lossing money when people don't see the need to buy an Apple 
> Mac when they can get a PC that runs Mac OS (as you know they will)

The ability to run hacked up versions of OS X on home-built boxes is not 
going to be significant to Apple's sales.

> 5) Macs suffering in graphics processing without AltiVec (as you know)

Graphics processing is mostly moving to the GPU. AltiVec would have 
become largely irrelevant to there anyway.

> 6) Mac programming code becoming more bloated because Intel code is 
> more complex

This doesn't make any sense. Code actually tends to be a bit smaller for 
x86, because it's a CISC architecture.

[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

Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
>>
>>>Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>abpp wrote:
>>>>[snipped]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
>>>>>FULLY commited to the PPC!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>[snipped]
>>>>
>>>>When you've finished wiping the saliva off your chin, would you care to
>>>>list the companies apart from Apple that are shipping PPC based personal
>>>>computers.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Genesi
>>
>>OK, I'll pay that one.
> 
> 
> Ok.
> 
> 
>>>Eyetech
>>>
>>
>>Hmm, looks a bit Amiga ish to me. Does it run a mainstream OS?
>>
> 
> 
> They apparently support Linux.
> 
They do at that 
http://www.eyetech.co.uk/addbar.php?Address=/PRODUCT/PAMA1/AMIGA001.HTM

I stand corrected.

Andy

In article <znu-0B97E2.13333218062005@individual.net>, ZnU
<znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

>  Running Windows in a virtual 
> machine will probably be fairly popular, booting it natively not so 
> much.

I'm told by someone who was at WWDC that while he was there he saw
Windows programs running as if in Classic.

-- 
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>

In article <1119078946.316175.259200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> Let's take a look at the possibilities once Intel is inside:
> 
> 1) What about Macs running Windows (possible even after what Jobs 
> said)

Hmm, Jobs said that Apple will neither prevent nor help that possible 
development.  But Macs run Windows now.

> 2) PCs running Mac OS (as you know they will)

No, I don't.

> 3) PC clone makers making Macs-like clones (possible even after what 
> Jobs said)

Don't hold your breath.

> 4) Apple lossing money when people don't see the need to buy an Apple 
> Mac when they can get a PC that runs Mac OS (as you know they will)

No I don't.

> 5) Macs suffering in graphics processing without AltiVec (as you 
> know)

No I don't.

> 6) Mac programming code becoming more bloated because Intel code is 
> more complex

Hardly anyone writes directly to the processor these days, so why would 
it be more complex?

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1119078230.657592.87320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> All that "IBM cannot supply" crap is just that, crap. IBM was being 
> offered more business with the consoles and obviously they will put 
> more effort on those chips. IBM offered Apple/Jobs to move to one of 
> those PPC chips (that are faster and better designed), but Jobs in 
> his infinite arrogance didn't want to use "the other guys'" chips.

Maybe in your world, but not in the real world.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1119079489.106908.143530@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> Intel is Microsoft and Microsoft is Intel.

LOL

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

In article <1119078230.657592.87320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> All that "IBM cannot supply" crap is just that, crap. IBM was being
> offered more business with the consoles and obviously they
> will put more effort on those chips. 

So much for promises of things like, say, 3GHz G5s a year or two ago.

>IBM offered Apple/Jobs to move
> to one of those PPC chips (that are faster and better designed),

Better suited for game consoles, yes, for general-purpose computers, 
definitely not.

> We all trusted him and he betrayed the Mac.

It would have been betrayal had he stuck with the faltering G5 and G4 
processors; neither of them being produced by companies interested in 
the personal computing space.

Why aren't you wailing about Apple abandoning the 68K Mac? After all, it 
was the original True Mac(tm).

This is just a switch to another CPU.

> The Mac now is nothing but a PC with an Apple OS.

 - There are currently no intel-based Macs on the market. (Even the 
developer machines shown at WWDC aren't; they won't be going on the 
market for sale to end users.)

 - You don't know what implementation Apple is going to offer when they 
finally do ship intel-based Macs. The information currently publicly 
available indicates that they will *not* the a "PC with an Apple OS" in 
that they probably won't run Windows out of the box, and possibly not 
without a good deal of effort. They probably won't even be running on a 
currently-available Intel CPU.

> I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and FULLY commited to the PPC!

You mean Yellowdog Linux is still committed to the PPC. Other than YDL, 
PPC support is a bit thin on the ground.

Have fun, and don't let the door, etc.

In article <BobHatesSpam-984ED1.09082718062005@azure.impulse.net>, Bob
Blaylock <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote:

> In article <1119054002.845476.231190@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
>  yarmfelder@yahoo.com wrote:
> 
> > Apple lost its way years ago. I dumped them in 1995,
> > when Linux became usable. Never looked back.
> > 
> > Although the NeXT box was very cool. But Steve
> > screwed that up too by refusing to sell to students,
> > academics, and individuals. He insisted on selling
> > only to businesses and in bulk deals to colleges.
> > 
> > OS/X is nowhere near as smooth as NeXT OS.
> > What is accomplished using only a 68030 processor
> > was amazing.
> 
>   The company I worked for at the time bought a second-generation NeXT 
> when they came out, and I was the one who got to play with it.  In its 
> time, it was an amazing, wonderful system; years ahead of Windows and 
> MacOS of the time.
> 
>   But that was many years ago.  Both Windows and MacOS have continued to 
> be developed, and NeXTStep has not, at least not in that guise.
> 
>   It seems to me that MacOS X is very close to what NeXTSTep would have 
> become, if NeXT had stayed in the business, and continued to develop 
> NeXTStep to this day.

You could easily argue it's Apple that went out of business. NeXT/Jobs
took Apple over and MacOS X *IS* NeXTStep... the move to Intel seals
the deal.

http://www-teaching.physics.ox.ac.uk/~leeg/next/jobs_NS30_demo_large.mov

Today's Mac bears little resemblance to OS9, in comparison to NeXT.

In article <sehix-773483.13345218062005@news.isp.giganews.com>, 
sehix@NOSPAMspeakeasy.netINVALID says...
> In article <1119078230.657592.87320@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and FULLY commited to the PPC!
> 
> You mean Yellowdog Linux is still committed to the PPC. Other than YDL, 
> PPC support is a bit thin on the ground.

That might change after Apple's focus shifts predominantly to intel 
hardware.  There will be a lot of systems out there where Linux would
be a way to extend the life of those machines.

Besides, it's not like it's difficult to port open source code from
one Linux to another.

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"I don't really care about being right you know,
   I just care about success." --Steve Jobs

In article 
<1119078946.316175.259200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> You don't see it??!!
> 
> Now the Mac will be nothing but a PC with an Apple OS!!

As it has been for years.  The power pc wasn't black magic.
An Apple is a pretty PC in a nice chassis with a different
OS than usual.  That's it.


> Let's take a look at the possibilities once Intel is inside:

Ok.

> 1) What about Macs running Windows (possible even after what Jobs said)

So?  Apple charges for a copy of OS X with every box in the
base price.  What do they care?   Most people seem to steal
the updated versions after that.  So no big loss.  I am sure
Apple would rather sell the hardware and let them run Windows
on it than not sell it at all.

> 2) PCs running Mac OS (as you know they will)

If they had a hard to defeat activation mechanism this would 
not be a problem for Apple either.  If you want to pay $189
or whatever it turns out to be for OS X on your PC, why will
Apple want to not make that money?  Profit margin on Tiger
must be as good or better than on an iMac.

> 3) PC clone makers making Macs-like clones (possible even after what
> Jobs said)

So they sell even more copies of OS X, and more third-party
hardware vendors start writing drivers for it.

> 4) Apple lossing money when people don't see the need to buy an Apple
> Mac
> when they can get a PC that runs Mac OS (as you know they will)

If their hardware is compelling it will sell.  This is /no 
different/ than Dell versus HP versus Sony in the PC market.  
They compete on hardware features and price, not their 
uniqueness.

> 5) Macs suffering in graphics processing without AltiVec (as you know)

It's all about the GPU these days.  Welcome to the 21st 
century.

> 6) Mac programming code becoming more bloated because Intel code is
> more
> complex

Not true.  It's actually less complicated (and fewer 
instructions) than on power pc.  You think that Objective-C 
code looks different on Intel than it does on current macs?  
What have you been smoking?

> Need more??

No, that was enough gibberish for one day.

abpp wrote:
> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> technology.
> 
> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> jeaopardy and danger.
> 
> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.
> 
Don't worry -
You'll get you wish -

give Apple about 2 years after the switch

Jobs announcement of the Intel switch, is the end of Apple computer as a 
  computer vendor.

Apple may suvive as 'Applesoft', or as 'ApplePod', but Apple computer is 
dead.

In article <csadnRoayazTAynfRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
 "Fetch, Rover, Fetch" <Fetch-Rover-Fetch@K9University.edu> wrote:

> abpp wrote:
> > I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> > resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> > platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> > old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> > Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> > because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> > fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> > technology.
> > 
> > Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> > Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> > x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> > Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> > jeaopardy and danger.
> > 
> > The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> > Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.
> > 
> Don't worry -
> You'll get you wish -
> 
> give Apple about 2 years after the switch
> 
> Jobs announcement of the Intel switch, is the end of Apple computer as a 
>   computer vendor.
> 
> Apple may suvive as 'Applesoft', or as 'ApplePod', but Apple computer is 
> dead.

We've heard that before. Multiple times. Over the past 20 years.

Still waiting.

In article <1gybigq.11demno1d99uikN%hairy.biker@spamcop.net>,
 hairy.biker@spamcop.net (Andy Hewitt) wrote:

> Actually, it's probably on a par with finding out that PPC chips were
> made by IBM.
> 
> Intel have never been the baddies here, just MicroSoft.

This from a guy with an "Intel Outside" x-face.  Time for an update.

In article <180620051340292816%cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com>,
 Craig Koller <cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com> wrote:

> In article <BobHatesSpam-984ED1.09082718062005@azure.impulse.net>, Bob
> Blaylock <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote:
> 
> >   It seems to me that MacOS X is very close to what NeXTSTep would have 
> > become, if NeXT had stayed in the business, and continued to develop 
> > NeXTStep to this day.
> 
> You could easily argue it's Apple that went out of business. NeXT/Jobs
> took Apple over and MacOS X *IS* NeXTStep... the move to Intel seals
> the deal.
> .
> .
> .
> Today's Mac bears little resemblance to OS9, in comparison to NeXT.

  I've never thought of it that way, but yes, that does seem like a 
valid way of looking at it.  Certainly, MacOS X has more in common with 
NeXTStep than it does with MacOS 9 or below.

  It may indeed be fair to say that MacOS X is NeXTStep with several 
years of development and evolution beyond the last product that was 
actually called by that name; and with some Macintosh stuff grafted into 
it.

-- 
I hate spam, but that isn't really part of my email
address.  Remove the string "HatesSpam" from this email
address before you use it:  BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to

Ever wonder what it'd be like to be a blood-sucking parasite?
http://tinyurl.com/7wxk

In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker.

I haven't read the 82 replies so far. When a supplier fails to at least 
keep up with current technology that you wish to compete with, you dump 
them or die.

> Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> technology.

Keeping up with the technology a company is competing against is not 
extravagant.


> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth.

PPC probably is if IBM didn't stagnate in the personal computer field. 
But they did for whatever reason.

> His egomaniac
> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> jeaopardy and danger.

It was in a whole lot more danger until he retook it over.

> 
> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

Chill. Things will be fine. Or they won't. 

leo

-- 
<http://web0.greatbasin.net/~leo/

"Dave Balderstone" <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote in message 
news:180620051150547323%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca...
> In article <znu-0B97E2.13333218062005@individual.net>, ZnU
> <znu@fake.invalid> wrote:
>
>>  Running Windows in a virtual
>> machine will probably be fairly popular, booting it natively not so
>> much.
>
> I'm told by someone who was at WWDC that while he was there he saw
> Windows programs running as if in Classic.

well, seeing how MacOS X is pretty darned close to Linux at the low-level, 
and you can run most Windows programs in Linux using WINE...

"Michelle Steiner" <michelle@michelle.org> wrote in message 
news:michelle-6F6E75.12202118062005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <1119078946.316175.259200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Let's take a look at the possibilities once Intel is inside:
>>
>> 1) What about Macs running Windows (possible even after what Jobs
>> said)
>
> Hmm, Jobs said that Apple will neither prevent nor help that possible
> development.  But Macs run Windows now.
>
>> 2) PCs running Mac OS (as you know they will)
>
> No, I don't.
>
>> 3) PC clone makers making Macs-like clones (possible even after what
>> Jobs said)
>
> Don't hold your breath.
>
>> 4) Apple lossing money when people don't see the need to buy an Apple
>> Mac when they can get a PC that runs Mac OS (as you know they will)
>
> No I don't.
>
>> 5) Macs suffering in graphics processing without AltiVec (as you
>> know)
>
> No I don't.
>
>> 6) Mac programming code becoming more bloated because Intel code is
>> more complex
>
> Hardly anyone writes directly to the processor these days, so why would
> it be more complex?

What's the executable size of a Powerpc vs an Intel? I suspect that the 
Intel executable is slightly smaller... 

"abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote in message 
news:1119080079.099285.69940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> DAMN RIGHT!
>
>
>
> yarmfelder@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Apple lost its way years ago. I dumped them in 1995,
>> when Linux became usable. Never looked back.
>>
>> Although the NeXT box was very cool. But Steve
>> screwed that up too by refusing to sell to students,
>> academics, and individuals. He insisted on selling
>> only to businesses and in bulk deals to colleges.
>>
>> OS/X is nowhere near as smooth as NeXT OS.
>> What is accomplished using only a 68030 processor
>> was amazing.
>

What is this about Jobs not selling to education? The only cheap way to get 
a NeXT box was to be in education... 

"Bob Blaylock" <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote in message 
news:BobHatesSpam-B697E6.20295818062005@azure.impulse.net...
> In article <180620051340292816%cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com>,
> Craig Koller <cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <BobHatesSpam-984ED1.09082718062005@azure.impulse.net>, Bob
>> Blaylock <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote:
>>
>> >   It seems to me that MacOS X is very close to what NeXTSTep would have
>> > become, if NeXT had stayed in the business, and continued to develop
>> > NeXTStep to this day.
>>
>> You could easily argue it's Apple that went out of business. NeXT/Jobs
>> took Apple over and MacOS X *IS* NeXTStep... the move to Intel seals
>> the deal.
>> .
>> .
>> .
>> Today's Mac bears little resemblance to OS9, in comparison to NeXT.
>
>  I've never thought of it that way, but yes, that does seem like a
> valid way of looking at it.  Certainly, MacOS X has more in common with
> NeXTStep than it does with MacOS 9 or below.
>
>  It may indeed be fair to say that MacOS X is NeXTStep with several
> years of development and evolution beyond the last product that was
> actually called by that name; and with some Macintosh stuff grafted into
> it.
>

But not always the best stuff. OpenDoc has been replaced by Widgits and GX 
Typography replaced by AAT with most GX features buried or burned away. 

"Randy Howard" <randyhoward@FOOverizonBAR.net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.1d1d4664146241dd98aadc@news.verizon.net...
> In article <1119061621.198598.78750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> calcerise@hotmail.com says...
>> Eight to five it will.
>
> It will what?
>
>> Indeed from what I understand it does right now.
>
>
> It does what right now?
>
> Zero-context in your follow up means we get to guess what you
> are replying to above.
>

Run on generic PC hardware, I think he meant... 

ELVIS2000 <elvislives@whitehouse.gov> wrote:

> In article <1gybigq.11demno1d99uikN%hairy.biker@spamcop.net>,
>  hairy.biker@spamcop.net (Andy Hewitt) wrote:
> 
> > Actually, it's probably on a par with finding out that PPC chips were
> > made by IBM.
> > 
> > Intel have never been the baddies here, just MicroSoft.
> 
> This from a guy with an "Intel Outside" x-face.  Time for an update.

Not yet! ;-)

I'll change it when it happens. Besides, I couldn't find a 'Microsoft is
evil' x-face!

-- 
Andy Hewitt **  FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
(updated Feb 21 2005)

In article <O08te.3563$iG5.1808@fed1read05>,
 "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Bob Blaylock" <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote in message 
> news:BobHatesSpam-B697E6.20295818062005@azure.impulse.net...
> > In article <180620051340292816%cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com>,
> > Craig Koller <cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BobHatesSpam-984ED1.09082718062005@azure.impulse.net>, Bob
> >> Blaylock <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote:
> >>
> >> >   It seems to me that MacOS X is very close to what NeXTSTep would have
> >> > become, if NeXT had stayed in the business, and continued to develop
> >> > NeXTStep to this day.
> >>
> >> You could easily argue it's Apple that went out of business. NeXT/Jobs
> >> took Apple over and MacOS X *IS* NeXTStep... the move to Intel seals
> >> the deal.
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> Today's Mac bears little resemblance to OS9, in comparison to NeXT.
> >
> >  I've never thought of it that way, but yes, that does seem like a
> > valid way of looking at it.  Certainly, MacOS X has more in common with
> > NeXTStep than it does with MacOS 9 or below.
> >
> >  It may indeed be fair to say that MacOS X is NeXTStep with several
> > years of development and evolution beyond the last product that was
> > actually called by that name; and with some Macintosh stuff grafted into
> > it.
> >
> 
> But not always the best stuff. OpenDoc has been replaced by Widgits and GX 
> Typography replaced by AAT with most GX features buried or burned away. 

Somehow, I knew that you'd bring up GX somewhere in this thread.

It's dead. Get over it.

On 2005-06-17 14:06:57 -0400, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> said:

> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> technology.
> 
> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> jeaopardy and danger.
> 
> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.


And the PPC was going NOWHERE FAST. We as users won't see much of a 
difference when the switch comes.

 R_E_L_A_X_.....it'll be o.k......

-- 
Chris: "Dad, what's a blowhole for?"
Peter: "I'll tell you what it's NOT for and then you'll know why I can 
never go back to Sea World."

Ilgaz Ocal <Ilgaz@spamcop.net> wrote:

<Snipped Text>

> >> This from a guy with an "Intel Outside" x-face.  Time for an update.
> > 
> > Not yet! ;-)
> > 
> > I'll change it when it happens. Besides, I couldn't find a 'Microsoft is
> > evil' x-face!
> 
> I have a Intel sticker unused, no shit. Its from 2003, my P4 1800 box
> which I gave up for PPC 1600.

Shirley a 6100?

> Still happy ;)

That's what matters realy isn't it?

> Apple community became Intel whores, rotfl. Whatever, I don't care, my
> Simcity 4 comes in Monday, purchased 1.5 gb ram, happy here.

And that too. As long as your computer does what you need it too, what
else matters?

-- 
Andy Hewitt **  FAF#1, (Ex-OSOS#5) - FJ1200 ABS
Honda Civic: Windows free zone (Mac G5 Dual Processor)
http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/thehewitts2/index.htm
(updated Feb 21 2005)

In article <O08te.3563$iG5.1808@fed1read05>, LawsonE
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> "Bob Blaylock" <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote in message 
> news:BobHatesSpam-B697E6.20295818062005@azure.impulse.net...
> > In article <180620051340292816%cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com>,
> > Craig Koller <cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <BobHatesSpam-984ED1.09082718062005@azure.impulse.net>, Bob
> >> Blaylock <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote:
> >>
> >> >   It seems to me that MacOS X is very close to what NeXTSTep would have
> >> > become, if NeXT had stayed in the business, and continued to develop
> >> > NeXTStep to this day.
> >>
> >> You could easily argue it's Apple that went out of business. NeXT/Jobs
> >> took Apple over and MacOS X *IS* NeXTStep... the move to Intel seals
> >> the deal.
> >> .
> >> .
> >> .
> >> Today's Mac bears little resemblance to OS9, in comparison to NeXT.
> >
> >  I've never thought of it that way, but yes, that does seem like a
> > valid way of looking at it.  Certainly, MacOS X has more in common with
> > NeXTStep than it does with MacOS 9 or below.
> >
> >  It may indeed be fair to say that MacOS X is NeXTStep with several
> > years of development and evolution beyond the last product that was
> > actually called by that name; and with some Macintosh stuff grafted into
> > it.
> >
> 
> But not always the best stuff. OpenDoc has been replaced by Widgits and GX 
> Typography replaced by AAT with most GX features buried or burned away. 
> 

Unfortunately OpenDoc was one of many trees that fell in the woods that
no one heard...

The craziest thing about OD and GX (and ScriptX and CyberDog and ...)
was that Apple was selling these technologies at the same time that
they kept delaying their "buzzword-compliant" operating system for the
umpteenth time. Talk about mixed-up priorities... they were putting
Bose stereo components in a car with a sputtering engine.

Say what you want to about Jobs, positive or negative, he's the only
guy with the cajones to walk in and jam a stake in the ground and
deliver a coherent message about Apple to the industry. He knifed many,
many babies in Cupertino, but as a company run amok with no
consolidated vision that Sculley, Spindler and Amelio could reign in,
Apple needed discipline more than it needed superior technologies.

I hope that when the dust settles on the second round of X86 Macs,
perhaps, Apple can revisit some of these dormant projects and consider
ways of integrating their functionality into upcoming MacOS releases.

I know it's a hard pill for engineer-types to swallow, compromising the
bleeding edge in order to meet business objectives, but you can't
ignore market clarity and timing. Thus, Apple offered many solutions
ahead of their time, with muddy execution and lukewarm reception,
allowing MS to saunter in later on and effortlessly harvest the ripened
fruit.

"Travelinman" <nowhere@nospam.net> wrote in message 
news:nowhere-7D8172.06182419062005@news.central.cox.net...
> In article <O08te.3563$iG5.1808@fed1read05>,
> "LawsonE" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Blaylock" <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote in message
>> news:BobHatesSpam-B697E6.20295818062005@azure.impulse.net...
>> > In article <180620051340292816%cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com>,
>> > Craig Koller <cwkoller@STOPSPAMmac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <BobHatesSpam-984ED1.09082718062005@azure.impulse.net>, Bob
>> >> Blaylock <BobHatesSpam@Blaylock.to> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >   It seems to me that MacOS X is very close to what NeXTSTep would 
>> >> > have
>> >> > become, if NeXT had stayed in the business, and continued to develop
>> >> > NeXTStep to this day.
>> >>
>> >> You could easily argue it's Apple that went out of business. NeXT/Jobs
>> >> took Apple over and MacOS X *IS* NeXTStep... the move to Intel seals
>> >> the deal.
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> .
>> >> Today's Mac bears little resemblance to OS9, in comparison to NeXT.
>> >
>> >  I've never thought of it that way, but yes, that does seem like a
>> > valid way of looking at it.  Certainly, MacOS X has more in common with
>> > NeXTStep than it does with MacOS 9 or below.
>> >
>> >  It may indeed be fair to say that MacOS X is NeXTStep with several
>> > years of development and evolution beyond the last product that was
>> > actually called by that name; and with some Macintosh stuff grafted 
>> > into
>> > it.
>> >
>>
>> But not always the best stuff. OpenDoc has been replaced by Widgits and 
>> GX
>> Typography replaced by AAT with most GX features buried or burned away.
>
> Somehow, I knew that you'd bring up GX somewhere in this thread.
>
> It's dead. Get over it.

As long as you're not affected? Actually, GX features ARE still available in 
the Type Styler (or whatever its called) application that Apple has been 
shipping to do text-effects for video. The problem is that they still don't 
support them very well in Cocoa, or at least, not since the last time I 
looked. 

oooooo, burn!

In article <1119078946.316175.259200@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

> You don't see it??!!
> 
> Now the Mac will be nothing but a PC with an Apple OS!!

Most users don't have a clue which CPU their computer uses, nor why it 
matters.  OK, PPC is more elegant, but there simply isn't any PPC chip 
you can use in an upgraded notebook computer.  More than half of all 
computers sold are now laptops, and they are the expensive half, not the 
cheap half.  So Apple could either change CPU, or not have any 
competitive notebook computers.  Not much of a business choice there.

> Let's take a look at the possibilities once Intel is inside:
> 
> 1) What about Macs running Windows (possible even after what Jobs said)

So?  You can run Windows on a Mac now via emulation.  People who really 
need that pay their money and do so.  The rest of us don't.  Either 
Microsoft will make a Windows version that runs on Mac hardware, or they 
will continue with VirtualPC.  Or maybe someone will come up with a hack 
that will let a standard Windows run.  95% of Windows systems can run 
Linux.  Most do not do so.  Even if 100% of Macs can run Windows, most 
will not do so.  No real change.

> 2) PCs running Mac OS (as you know they will)

When the Intel based Macs turn out to use EFI instead of a BIOS as in 
the developer's model.  When each new OS X version breaks on most PCs 
someone gets running.  Sure some people will get OS X running on some 
PCs.  However you won't get most versions of OS X running on most PCs, 
and that is all that matters in terms of sales.

> 3) PC clone makers making Macs-like clones (possible even after what
> Jobs said)

Possible, but then they will probably have to match whatever hardware 
Apple uses (add Firewire, maybe use the same Intel chipsets, remove 
legacy ports, possibly change the interrupt structure - Apple have no 
need for PC legacy compatibility).  Apple Ethernet will have MAC 
addresses (and maybe Intel DRM numbers) OS X can check.  To sell them 
legally as Apple clones in major markets they will have to supply OS X, 
plus patches to get OS X working (and every software update can be set 
to break them). Apple have absolutely no reason to make life easy for 
clone makers.  Sure, they can do it.  But life for their owners could 
end up being a hassle.

> 4) Apple lossing money when people don't see the need to buy an Apple
> Mac
> when they can get a PC that runs Mac OS (as you know they will)

See above.  Also, people still buy brand name notebooks like Toshiba 
when you can get no brand a lot cheaper.  Paying for reputation and 
support can be easier than fighting to save the last possible cent.

> 5) Macs suffering in graphics processing without AltiVec (as you know)

The Intel equivalent isn't terrible now, and is expected to improve by 
the time Apple plan to sell Intel based systems.  GPU and Core Image 
will hide most of that anyhow.
> 
> 6) Mac programming code becoming more bloated because Intel code is
> more
> complex

Code bloat is a problem?  Never seemed a real problem in Windows, except 
in the general sense that the more code the more bugs are likely.  
Besides, people can code a lot cleaner if there is a real demand, even 
on Intel (but the demand isn't there).  It isn't like we are short of 
disk and memory space these days.  It isn't like putting a multitasking 
OS into an ARM chip with 4MB of total available memory and disk.

> Need more??

Need something that seems more like a real problem.

-- 
http://www.ericlindsay.com

Forget about Eyetech! They are garbage. Genesi and these guys are the
good ones:

http://www.gvs9000.com/products.html

http://www.mc.com/products/search.cfm?type=systems

and Genesi again:

http://www.pegasosppc.com/odw.php



Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > abpp wrote:
> > [snipped]
> >
> > > PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
> > > FULLY commited to the PPC!
> > >
> > [snipped]
> >
> > When you've finished wiping the saliva off your chin, would you care to
> > list the companies apart from Apple that are shipping PPC based personal
> > computers.
> >
>
> Genesi
>
> Eyetech
>
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew J. Brehm
> Marx Brothers Fan
> PowerPC/Macintosh User
> Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches

Ah, forget about:

http://www.mc.com/products/search.cfm?type=systems

They only make Intel machines.




abpp wrote:
> Forget about Eyetech! They are garbage. Genesi and these guys are the
> good ones:
>
> http://www.gvs9000.com/products.html
>
> http://www.mc.com/products/search.cfm?type=systems
>
> and Genesi again:
>
> http://www.pegasosppc.com/odw.php
>
>
>
> Andrew J. Brehm wrote:
> > Andy Mulhearn <mully@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > abpp wrote:
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > > PC with an Apple OS. I'm so glad that Linux is getting better and
> > > > FULLY commited to the PPC!
> > > >
> > > [snipped]
> > >
> > > When you've finished wiping the saliva off your chin, would you care to
> > > list the companies apart from Apple that are shipping PPC based personal
> > > computers.
> > >
> >
> > Genesi
> >
> > Eyetech
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Brehm
> > Marx Brothers Fan
> > PowerPC/Macintosh User
> > Supporter of Chicken Sandwiches

Don't be a dufus. The Mac's strength has always been the software 
design and the tight integration between computer chip maker and 
os/software writers. New chips? Who cares. You can bet the Mac software 
written for Intel chips will run circles around Windows software 
written for the same chips.


On 2005-06-17 14:06:57 -0400, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> said:

> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> technology.
> 
> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> jeaopardy and danger.
> 
> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

On 17 Jun 2005 11:06:57 -0700, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

>I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
>resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
>platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
>old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
>Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that
just
>because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
>fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an
inferior
>technology.
>
>Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
>Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
>x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
>Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
>jeaopardy and danger.
>
>The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
>Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

Oh quit being such a god damn crybaby.  You're like these morons who
want one nation under god taken out of the pledge of aligence.  Or the
right wing wackos who think gay marriage will ruin the planet.

Apple is a business, Steve Jobs and the Apple management are
innovators.  They are far more qualified to make these decisions then
you are.  If I'm wrong, please point me to the web site of your
hardware/software company so I can evaluate your qualifications.

Apple rules, Wintel sux

Wintel rules apple sux

Boo hoo boo hoo, what a bunch of pansy bitches you all are.

If you don't like Apple, don't use it.

I own both and I see a need for both for various reasons.  Neither is
a be all end all.

You want to cry about a companies ethics, business practices, got to
an enron, or world com site and piss in the wind.


Let me know when you've CREATED something better, but until then, SHUT
THE FUCK UP!
-- 
Scorp

Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..


Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?


But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ


Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?


They have been really missing the boat for many years...

iTunes etc is what has saved them..

The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows 
goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
money..

When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

cd


, "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:

>I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
>resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
>platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
>old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
>Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
>because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
>fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
>technology.
>
>Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
>Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
>x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
>Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
>jeaopardy and danger.
>
>The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
>Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

In article <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com>,
 notell <jeep4parts2@verizon.net> wrote:

> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Because they would go out of business.

Many, many companies have tried to do this. Every single one, without 
exception, has gone out of business as a result. Every one.

We learn from history that we do not learn anything from history.

-- 
Art, photography, shareware, polyamory, literature, kink:
all at http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Nanohazard, Geek shirts, and more: http://www.villaintees.com

On 2006-04-11, notell <jeep4parts2@verizon.net> wrote:

> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Apple's core business is hardware - Macs and iPods. The unique
ability to run Mac OS X is one of the primary reasons that people
buy Macs. One can only assume that Apple have done the sums and
come to the conclusion that the increase in OS sales would not
compensate for the decrease in hardware sales.

Any other questions?

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

notell wrote:
> Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..
>
>
> Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?
>
>
> But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ
>
>
> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Have you seen the state of some of the cheap knockoff boxes out there that 
their manufacturers have the nerve to call a computer? I won't waste time 
claiming that Windows XP is perfect, but I'd be willing to bet a good 
percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are 
actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts, and not the 
fault of the software at all.

I think keeping out of that mess is the smartest thing Apple have done on 
their road to Intel. 

In article <tacitr-ADE1CE.13244711042006@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com>,
 tacit <tacitr@aol.com> wrote:

> We learn from history that we do not learn anything from history.

ROTFL!

Entity Robert Moir uttered this profundity:

> I'd be willing to bet a good
> percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are
> actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts

I hate to denigrate the American Way, but the Profit Motive shot themselves
in the foot on this one. All those PeeCees are made with the absolute
cheapest components that are ordered in bulk from the cheapest bidder.

Not a recipe for reliability.

-- Gnarlie

In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell  wrote:
> 
> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?
> 
> 
> They have been really missing the boat for many years...
> 
> iTunes etc is what has saved them..
> 
> The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows 
> goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
> money..
> 
> When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Please read this first:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made 
there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

-- 
Roger Johnstone, Invercargill, New Zealand
http://roger.geek.nz/
________________________________________________________________________
  No Silicon Heaven? Preposterous! Where would all the calculators go?

              Kryten, from the Red Dwarf episode "The Last Day"

In article <20060412225402421+1200@News.Individual.NET>,
Roger Johnstone  <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:
>In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell  wrote:
..... 
>> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
>> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?
......
>Please read this first:
>http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

>When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made 
>there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

Excellent points in your article. This underscores the importance
to Apple of preserving hardware sales (their core business). The
risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and wide-spread
disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware.

In article <20060412225402421+1200@News.Individual.NET>, Roger
Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

> Please read this first:
> http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas
> 
> When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made 
> there, then come back here and tell us what they are.


Okay.
I don't think Apple should do it, either, but I've got one:

What that argument explains is how Apple does business TODAY.

What it ignores is that a very large part of their business could take
a new direction.

There are many examples in business history, and I suppose one of the
most famous is Wrigley's.
He got started in soap and baking powder; gum was once offered as a
premium, a mere gimmick. It proved to be in more demand, and he
eventually switched the entire company to make the gum.

http://www.wrigley.com/wrigley/about/about_story.asp

I'm not saying Apple is in the same position, nor that they should
switch, but three things are important:
they haven't got a major hardware performance advantage, so their
reliability and quality has to be emphasized
the OS and software is definitely their strongest asset, and would
almost certainly be popular if they opened it's market.
the iPod and iTunes Store markets would not be hurt by that move

Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

> In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell  wrote:
> > 
> > Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
> > they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?
> > 
> > 
> > They have been really missing the boat for many years...
> > 
> > iTunes etc is what has saved them..
> > 
> > The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows
> > goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
> > money..
> > 
> > When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.
> 
> Please read this first:
> http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas
> 
> When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made 
> there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

If I had a penny for every time I'd seen someone ignorantly trott out,
"Apple should just put OSX on generic x86", like some sort of armchair
CEO, I'd have... well, about 10 or 11 pennies now...

This is excellent!  Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point
them to this page, and say no more.  Assuming it's going to be around
for the foreseeable future that is.

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!

RE the posting:
<<  The risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and wide-spread
disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware. >>

I wouldn't be surprised if - within two years - Apple is selling a boxed
version of "OS X for Intel-based computers".

Impossible, you say?

Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that
Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel
chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
boot Windows on a Mac?

But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the
shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to
install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support
Windows-booting on Apple products?

Boy, times change fast around here. Never say "never".

- John

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that
> Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel
> chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

No. I recalll Apple issuing a standard "no comment".

> 
> But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
> announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
> boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
> boot Windows on a Mac?

I recall just the opposite... a statement that they  wouldn't do
anything to block it.

> But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the
> shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to
> install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support
> Windows-booting on Apple products?

No, I don't recall that.

Can you offer cites for any of this?

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>,
John Albert  <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>RE the posting:
><<  The risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and wide-spread
>disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware. >>
>
>I wouldn't be surprised if - within two years - Apple is selling a boxed
>version of "OS X for Intel-based computers".
>
>Impossible, you say?
>
>Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that
>Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel
>chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

I don't know for sure, but since Apple's general policy is not to
comment on unreleased products, I doubt they made any such fervent denials.

>But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
>announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
>boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
>boot Windows on a Mac?

Apple never denied that.

>But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the
>shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to
>install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support
>Windows-booting on Apple products?

No, in fact, I don't remember that.
-- 
  There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
  result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that
> Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel
> chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
chips. They never said anything about it.

> But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
> announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
> boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
> boot Windows on a Mac?

They never denied it would be possible. They even said they would do
nothing to prevent it. 

> But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs
> hit the shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker
> with them to install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD
> NOT support Windows-booting on Apple products?

They said and say they will not support Windows. They did not say
anything about dual booting.

-- 
Charles

In article <1hdp78w.hzfzodb6x0xnN%me4@privacy.net>,
 me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:

> This is excellent!  Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point
> them to this page, and say no more.  Assuming it's going to be around
> for the foreseeable future that is.

DaringFireball.net is John Gruber's web site, and all the articles are his.  
He posts them quite often, and the archive contains his articles all the 
way back to 2002, which is probably when he started the site, and I expect 
they'll stay there for years to come.

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
<j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
> announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
> boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
> boot Windows on a Mac?
> 
> But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the
> shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to
> install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support
> Windows-booting on Apple products?

I remember the reverse; Apple was determined that Mac OS X would not
run on non-Apple hardware.
They've been pretty specific about that.
Are you sure that isn't the statement that you read?

In article <120420061750288243%mitch@hawaii.rr>,
 Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:

> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> 
> > But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
> > announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
> > boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
> > boot Windows on a Mac?
> > 
> > But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the
> > shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to
> > install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support
> > Windows-booting on Apple products?
> 
> I remember the reverse; Apple was determined that Mac OS X would not
> run on non-Apple hardware.
> They've been pretty specific about that.
> Are you sure that isn't the statement that you read?

There were two statements.

One was that OS X would not run on non-Apple hardware.

The other was that while Apple wasn't going to prevent loading Windows 
onto Apple hardware, they weren't planning on facilitating it, either.  
So the expectation was that third parties would produce something like 
Boot Camp, not Apple themselves.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***

John C. Randolph <jcr.nospam@nospam.mac.com> wrote:

> On 2006-04-12 13:26:47 -0700, me4@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) said:
> 
> > Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:
> > 
> >> In <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com> notell  wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
> >>> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> They have been really missing the boat for many years...
> >>> 
> >>> iTunes etc is what has saved them..
> >>> 
> >>> The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;Windows
> >>> goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
> >>> money..
> >>> 
> >>> When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.
> >> 
> >> Please read this first:
> >> http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas
> >> 
> >> When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made
> >> there, then come back here and tell us what they are.
> > 
> > If I had a penny for every time I'd seen someone ignorantly trott out,
> > "Apple should just put OSX on generic x86", like some sort of armchair
> > CEO, I'd have... well, about 10 or 11 pennies now...
> > 
> > This is excellent!  Whenever I hear this asked again, I'm going to point
> > them to this page, and say no more.  Assuming it's going to be around
> > for the foreseeable future that is.
> 
> I notice that Jon only considers the case of the product being sold for
> the same price, whether it's for a Mac or for a generic machine.
> 
> There is a large group of people who don't get to choose their 
> hardware, because of company-wide supply contracts that their IT 
> departments make with Dell or HP, but who nevertheless have the 
> authority to spend a grand on a software package.  For those users, I'd
> say go ahead and sell them OS X, but charge enough that the net is 
> about the same as selling them a Mac, plus a premium to allow for the
> costs of supporting the product in Dell's crappy hardware.  $600 for a
> user install, $800 for a developer seat (same price as OpenStep 4.0) 
> should do it.

<quote>
unlike Mac OS X installer DVDs, you can't burn copies of MacBooks or
iPods.
</quote>

-- 
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!

Roger Johnstone <news2006@roger.geek.nz> wrote:

> http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas
> 
> When you can come up with some good arguments against the case made 
> there, then come back here and tell us what they are.

What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:

> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested
> > that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on
> > the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
> 
> They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
> chips. They never said anything about it.

They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that
> Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel
> chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?

I seem to remember that I purchased a [now defunct] Apple PC card for my
old 6100/60. It booted into Windows ...
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:

> What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
> concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...

Coming real soon now to a mac near you:
<http://www.parallels.com/>
-- 
/Jon
For mail address, run the following in Terminal: 
echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: storhaugen

Jon <see_signature@mac.com.invalid> wrote:

> Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
> > concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...
> 
> Coming real soon now to a mac near you:
> <http://www.parallels.com/>

I have noticed:-).
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per R�nne wrote
(in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):

> Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
> 
>> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
>> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested
>>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on
>>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
>> 
>> They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
>> chips. They never said anything about it.
> 
> They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...
> 

Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel machines 
were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and RUNNING 
an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.

If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be 
supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X 
would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a generic 
version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs,  including BIOS 
chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a 
means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round 
of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and 
unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of 
developing commercial virtualization software). 

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

On 2006-04-13, Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>
> What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
> concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...

You have slightly confused two different abilities here.

1) The ability to run Windows applications under Mac OS X
2) The ability to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently

Personally I need these abilities like a fish needs a bicycle
but I do understand that there is a market for products which
provide them.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

In article <0001HW.C063F22900129846F0488530@news20.forteinc.com>,
 Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per R�nne wrote
> (in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> 
> > Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
> >> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested
> >>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on
> >>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
> >> 
> >> They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
> >> chips. They never said anything about it.
> > 
> > They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...
> > 
> 
> Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel machines 
> were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and RUNNING 
> an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.
> 
> If I remember correctly,

You don't. Try watching the keynote again. 
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/mwsf06/


>  Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be 
> supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X 
> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a generic 
> version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.
> 
> In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs,  including BIOS 
> chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.
> 
> Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a 
> means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round 
> of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and 
> unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of 
> developing commercial virtualization software).

-- 
reguarding Snit  "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, 
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting 
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a
> means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round
> of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and 
> unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of
> developing commercial virtualization software). 

That will make it optional for the user which system will be booted
into, and if booted into MacOS X, it will be able to run Windows as a
guest.

With the new Parallels, the partition used by DualBoot cannot be used.
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> On 2006-04-13, Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
> > concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...
> 
> You have slightly confused two different abilities here.
> 
> 1) The ability to run Windows applications under Mac OS X
> 2) The ability to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently

I am fully aware of the two possibilities here - had I not I had not
mentioned "applications" - in brackets.
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

On 2006-04-13, Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2006-04-13, Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > What we really need is a way of running Windows [applications]
>> > concurrently with MacOSX, with full support of copy-and-paste ...
>> 
>> You have slightly confused two different abilities here.
>> 
>> 1) The ability to run Windows applications under Mac OS X
>> 2) The ability to run Windows and Mac OS X concurrently
>
> I am fully aware of the two possibilities here - had I not I had not
> mentioned "applications" - in brackets.

What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).

Of course 2) does not imply 1) but at least in *theory* it
would seem that having 1) would make 2) redundant. In theory
there is no difference between theory and practice, but in
practice...

Neither 1) nor 2) implies the abilty to cut and paste between
Windows applications and Mac applications, so you were right
to add that as an additional requirement.

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

John Albert wrote:
[snip]
>
> Boy, times change fast around here. Never say "never".

I think the tin foil lining on your baseball cap has got too tight again. 

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
> no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
> need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).

To me, it would be fully sufficient to be able to run a few Windows
applications directly from MacOS X, namely a few dictionaries not
available for Mac + Access.

After all I have Windows computers too, one desktop and one IBM laptop.
I just need to be able to copy-and-paste. And not have to have more than
one computer running [which costs electricity] just in order to look up
a word in Oxford English Dictionary [the 23 volume version on CD-ROM].
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

On 2006-04-14, Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
>
>> What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
>> no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
>> need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).
>
> To me, it would be fully sufficient to be able to run a few Windows
> applications directly from MacOS X, namely a few dictionaries not
> available for Mac + Access.

OK, thanks for the clarification and sorry for being pedantic:-)
It seems that it is possible to do this using Darwine, but it is
in an early stage of development and "definitely not ready for
prime time". The best resource I know of for information about
running Windows or Windows applications on an Intel Mac is:

http://www.macwindows.com/winintelmac.html

Ian

-- 
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/

Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:

> On 2006-04-14, Per R�nne <per@RQNNE.invalid> wrote:
> > Ian Gregory <foo@bar.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> What I meant by "confused" is that your statement gives us
> >> no clue as to whether you think we really need 1) or really
> >> need 2) or really need both 1) and 2).
> >
> > To me, it would be fully sufficient to be able to run a few Windows
> > applications directly from MacOS X, namely a few dictionaries not
> > available for Mac + Access.
> 
> OK, thanks for the clarification and sorry for being pedantic:-)
> It seems that it is possible to do this using Darwine, but it is
> in an early stage of development and "definitely not ready for
> prime time". The best resource I know of for information about
> running Windows or Windows applications on an Intel Mac is:
> 
> http://www.macwindows.com/winintelmac.html

Well, I'll have to wait for it until I actually own a MacIntel.

But I've bookmarked the site:-).
-- 
Per Erik R�nne
http://www.RQNNE.dk

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:41:11 -0700, Robert Moir wrote
(in article <bLS_f.31337$g76.12036@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>):

> notell wrote:
>> Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..
>> 
>> 
>> Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?
>> 
>> 
>> But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ
>> 
>> 
>> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
>> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?
> 
> Have you seen the state of some of the cheap knockoff boxes out there that 
> their manufacturers have the nerve to call a computer? I won't waste time 
> claiming that Windows XP is perfect, but I'd be willing to bet a good 
> percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are 
> actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts, and not the 
> fault of the software at all.

I heartily agree.  Apple's "just work" for a simple reason:  Apple has TOTAL 
control over the hardware environment as well as the software environment.  

Microsoft, on the other hand, tried to put a computer on ANYONE's desk, not 
just the desks of the Elitists.  With the thousands of device manufacturers 
and software developers out there who produce products for the Windows OS, 
it's no wonder they don't always work as they should.

And I also agree that poorly-written device drivers are the main reason for 
Window's instability.  But Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not, as a general 
rule, write device drivers.  They leave that up to the Market, while Apple 
controls EVERY aspect of its OS and machine, even providing the device 
drivers.

Again, Microsoft chose a different path.  They chose to make THOUSANDS 
millionaires, rather than  a FEW, as Apple did.  This is because of Mr. Job's 
greediness, pure and simple.

> 
> I think keeping out of that mess is the smartest thing Apple have done on 
> their road to Intel. 
> 
> 

How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a 
Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979, and was SO 
HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your 
desks?  Come on, now, be honest...

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 17:27:21 -0700, Gnarlodious wrote
(in article <C061A578.17CDA%gnarlodious@yahoo.com>):

> Entity Robert Moir uttered this profundity:
> 
>> I'd be willing to bet a good
>> percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are
>> actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts
> 
> I hate to denigrate the American Way, but the Profit Motive shot themselves
> in the foot on this one. All those PeeCees are made with the absolute
> cheapest components that are ordered in bulk from the cheapest bidder.

I MUST take issue with your statement made in ignorance.  The fact is, NOT 
ALL PCs are made with inferior devices, as you claim.  Many manufacturers of 
PCs want to give their customers value for their money.  As an example, I 
point to Asus, which produces the BEST motherboards (logic board to you) in 
the  world.  ASUS even produced APPLE  PPC logic boards (they may even be 
producing the Apple/Intel logic boards today.  If I am mistaken, please 
forgive me).

My PowerMac G5 dual-cpu machine is the BEST-engineered computer I have EVER 
seen, and I would only trade it for an Apple/Intel Core-Duo 30" iMac, 
especially since Mr. Jobs gave in to customer demand, and released BootCamp.

But I would trade even THAT for an equally-equipped Intel PC which is able to 
run OS X natively alongside Vista.  Maybe the box would be ugly and white.  
The OUTSIDE is irrelevant to me.  What is INSIDE is what I am after.

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

Donald L McDaniel wrote:


>
> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine
> was a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979,
> and was SO HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL
> COMPUTER on your desks?  Come on, now, be honest...

Ahh. I'm an apple loving elitist huh?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/mvp/bios/moir.mspx

that'll be the egg on your face. 

In article <0001HW.C067CB4A004FA5A2F0488530@news20.forteinc.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> Again, Microsoft chose a different path.  They chose to make THOUSANDS 
> millionaires, rather than  a FEW, as Apple did.  This is because of Mr. Job's 
> greediness, pure and simple.

Hah, hah hah.
You seem to be suggesting that Microsoft chose a path sepcifically to
make a lot of people wealthy -- as if that was the motivation.
An you are specifically saying that Jobs chose Apple's path just
because of his own particular greediness.

That is such nonsense I can't believe you've paid any attention at all.

It is common knowledge, and held rue by the individuals that know, that
Gates was trying to build a business, and Jobs was trying to build a
great computer. Those are different goals, but nothing like what you
suggest, and neither of them are _anything_ like what you suggest here.

This is not the place for childish and STUPID accusations -- there are
too many knowledgable people here, and there is a particular topic to
be discussed.
I'm sure you're welcome to join in if you want to be truthful and
reasonable. No BS, period.

> In article <0001HW.C067CB4A004FA5A2F0488530@news20.forteinc.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
> 
> > Again, Microsoft chose a different path.  They chose to make THOUSANDS 
> > millionaires, rather than  a FEW, as Apple did.  This is because of Mr. 
> > Job's greediness, pure and simple.

McDaniel, you *do* tend to go on about things of which you clearly know 
nothing.

You really ought to cut back on it; it doesn't actually make you look 
better in society.

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 11:41:11 -0700, Robert Moir wrote
> (in article <bLS_f.31337$g76.12036@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>):
> 
>> notell wrote:
>>> Well I have a better reason.. Scratch that..
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?
>>>
>>>
>>> But here would be the better reason to lay of SJ
>>>
>>>
>>> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
>>> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?
>> Have you seen the state of some of the cheap knockoff boxes out there that 
>> their manufacturers have the nerve to call a computer? I won't waste time 
>> claiming that Windows XP is perfect, but I'd be willing to bet a good 
>> percentage of the people moaning about stability problems with it are 
>> actually suffering from hardware faults due to below spec parts, and not the 
>> fault of the software at all.
> 
> I heartily agree.  Apple's "just work" for a simple reason:  Apple has TOTAL 
> control over the hardware environment as well as the software environment.  

By that logic, all DIY Linux boxes should 'just work', because the 
builders have complete control over all aspects of the machine. It's 
certainly possible to build such a system, but it requires a fair bit of 
thought too.

> 
> Microsoft, on the other hand, tried to put a computer on ANYONE's desk, not 
> just the desks of the Elitists.

So did Apple. They were succeeding for awhile.

>  With the thousands of device manufacturers 
> and software developers out there who produce products for the Windows OS, 
> it's no wonder they don't always work as they should.

That same problem should extend, then, to Linux drivers--but it doesn't.

> 
> And I also agree that poorly-written device drivers are the main reason for 
> Window's instability.  But Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not, as a general 
> rule, write device drivers.  They leave that up to the Market, while Apple 
> controls EVERY aspect of its OS and machine, even providing the device 
> drivers.

That is their own fault.

> 
> Again, Microsoft chose a different path.  They chose to make THOUSANDS 
> millionaires, rather than  a FEW, as Apple did.  This is because of Mr. Job's 
> greediness, pure and simple.

Jobs had absolutely nothing to do with that. Indeed, he even figured out 
the stupidity of trying to compete with integrated systems when he was 
running NeXT--why do you think NeXT clones existed?

> 
>> I think keeping out of that mess is the smartest thing Apple have done on 
>> their road to Intel. 
>>
>>
> 
> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a 
> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979, and was SO 
> HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your 
> desks?  Come on, now, be honest...

I wasn't old enough for it to be a novelty. By the time I got my first 
computer, they were commonplace.


-- 
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per R�nne wrote
> (in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
> 
>> Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
>>> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested
>>>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on
>>>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
>>> They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
>>> chips. They never said anything about it.
>> They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...
>>
> 
> Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel machines 
> were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and RUNNING 
> an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.

If you'll look back, you can probably find my predictions of exactly 
that move. IIRC, my comments were something to the effect of "Apple 
would be insane not to maintain an x86 version of OS X". OS X was an x86 
operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.

> 
> If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be 
> supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X 
> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a generic 
> version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.

And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's 
tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

> 
> In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs,  including BIOS 
> chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.

OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even 
conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.

> 
> Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a 
> means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second round 
> of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and 
> unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of 
> developing commercial virtualization software). 

I would be very disappointed if Apple wasn't developing a VM monitor for 
Leopard. Particularly since they are using Intel chips, and have ready 
access to Intel's hardware VT solution.


-- 
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit

In article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, TheLetterK
<theletterk@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:

> OS X was an x86 
> operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.

Huh?
At that time, Apple was entirely developing on and for PPC; why do you
suppose that x86 code predates PPC code?

> > If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY
> > be 
> > supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X 
> > would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a
> > generic 
> > version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.
> 
> And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's 
> tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

Why?
Why would you go to Apple for support with a product made by Microsoft,
written by Microsoft, and supported by Microsoft? Isn't that like going
to a surgeon for help with your pet dog?

> > In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs,  including
> > BIOS 
> > chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.
> 
> OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even 
> conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.
SDKs released to for x86 processors does not mean that the OS was ever
being made to work under x86 -- it was just recognizing that some
developers used x86 hardware to produce.
I think you are talking about the tools, not the product.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:50:25 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
(in article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):

> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per R�nne wrote
>> (in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
>> 
>>> Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
>>>> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested
>>>>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on
>>>>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
>>>> They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
>>>> chips. They never said anything about it.
>>> They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...
>>> 
>> 
>> Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel 
>> machines 
>> were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and 
>> RUNNING 
>> an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.
> 
> If you'll look back, you can probably find my predictions of exactly 
> that move. IIRC, my comments were something to the effect of "Apple 
> would be insane not to maintain an x86 version of OS X". OS X was an x86 
> operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.
> 
>> 
>> If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY 
>> be 
>> supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X 
>> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a 
>> generic 
>> version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.
> 
> And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's 
> tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.

Well, I CAN purchase XP on the Apple Shop online.  All I have to do is 
purchase a version of Virtual PC  for Macs (that piece of crap!) which 
includes a license for Windows.

> 
>> 
>> In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs,  including 
>> BIOS 
>> chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.
> 
> OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even 
> conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.

I actually was not aware that the NeXT OS was developed on an Intel.  Thank 
you for educating me.  I assumed that Mr. Jobs built the NeXT cubes and 
developed an OS (the NeXT OS) for it.

> 
>> 
>> Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a 
>> means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second 
>> round 
>> of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and 
>> unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of 
>> developing commercial virtualization software). 
> 
> I would be very disappointed if Apple wasn't developing a VM monitor for 
> Leopard. Particularly since they are using Intel chips, and have ready 
> access to Intel's hardware VT solution.

Well, my friend, at least we can agree (at least in this case) about 
software.  Too bad we can't agree about Christianity.  But, we can't always 
get what we want, can we? (Didn't even the Rolling Stones, who are as far 
away from love for God as anyone, say that?.  Well, in this instance, I 
certainly agree with them.)

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

"Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> stated in post 170420060908396065%mitch@hawaii.rr
on 4/17/06 12:08 PM:

> In article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, TheLetterK
> <theletterk@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> 
>> OS X was an x86 
>> operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.
> 
> Huh?
> At that time, Apple was entirely developing on and for PPC; why do you
> suppose that x86 code predates PPC code?

Likely talking about NeXT, which is where much of the OS X code came from.
> 
>>> If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY be
>>> supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X
>>> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a
>>> generic version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.
>>> 
>> And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's tech
>> support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.
> 
> Why?
> Why would you go to Apple for support with a product made by Microsoft,
> written by Microsoft, and supported by Microsoft? Isn't that like going
> to a surgeon for help with your pet dog?

Apple will almost certainly support Boot Camp or whatever the final version
is called but will *not* support Windows unless they sell it directly to you
pre-installed - which may never happen.


-- 
� As of Feb 2006 Apple had no wireless Mighty Mouse
� If A = B then B = A (known as the "symmetric property of equality")
� One can be guilty of a crime but neither tried nor convicted

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:50:25 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
> (in article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>):
> 
>> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 07:25:28 -0700, Per R�nne wrote
>>> (in article <1hdqqlq.tc9ap1i5pd1fN%per@RQNNE.invalid>):
>>>
>>>> Charles <fort514@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>, John Albert
>>>>> <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested
>>>>>> that Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on
>>>>>> the Intel chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
>>>>> They never denied they were developing a version of OS X on Intel
>>>>> chips. They never said anything about it.
>>>> They even developed an Intel version of Darwin - a free download ...
>>>>
>>> Even during Job's Keynote address last year when Apple's first Intel 
>>> machines 
>>> were released, he stated publicly that Apple had been developing and 
>>> RUNNING 
>>> an Intel version of OS X right alongside OS X/PPC.
>> If you'll look back, you can probably find my predictions of exactly 
>> that move. IIRC, my comments were something to the effect of "Apple 
>> would be insane not to maintain an x86 version of OS X". OS X was an x86 
>> operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.
>>
>>> If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY 
>>> be 
>>> supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X 
>>> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a 
>>> generic 
>>> version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.
>> And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's 
>> tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.
> 
> Well, I CAN purchase XP on the Apple Shop online.  All I have to do is 
> purchase a version of Virtual PC  for Macs (that piece of crap!) which 
> includes a license for Windows.
> 
>>> In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs,  including 
>>> BIOS 
>>> chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.
>> OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even 
>> conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.
> 
> I actually was not aware that the NeXT OS was developed on an Intel.  Thank 
> you for educating me.  I assumed that Mr. Jobs built the NeXT cubes and 
> developed an OS (the NeXT OS) for it.

Nextstep *was* developed for m68k, but *OS X* (Rhapsody was an early 
version) is a specific variant of Nextstep, and was originally developed 
for x86.

> 
>>> Because of this, I am inclined to believe that Apple's software labs had a 
>>> means of dual-booting OS X/Intel and Windows XP by the time the second 
>>> round 
>>> of Intels were announced, and released it earlier than expected (and 
>>> unfinished/crippled) because of user demand (they may be in the midst of 
>>> developing commercial virtualization software). 
>> I would be very disappointed if Apple wasn't developing a VM monitor for 
>> Leopard. Particularly since they are using Intel chips, and have ready 
>> access to Intel's hardware VT solution.
> 
> Well, my friend, at least we can agree (at least in this case) about 
> software.


-- 
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit

> , "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
> 
> >I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> >resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> >platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> >old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> >Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> >because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> >fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> >technology.
> >
> >Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> >Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> >x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> >Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> >jeaopardy and danger.
> >
> >The soul of the Mac Platform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> >Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.

Ok, I can understand the sentiment, but here is the situation:

1) IBM have FAILED to meet their promises regarding the G5 CPU:

   a) We are well beyond two years after the date IBM promised to get 
the G5 to go over 3GHz, and they have YET to break that barrier. This 
was an embarrassment to Jobs who, for whatever reason, promised all of 
us that this would happen within a year, back in 2003. Consider him 
suitably ticked off at IBM.

   b) IBM also FAILED to meet their promise of making a low 
wattage/power/heat G5 processor that could be used in laptops. They have 
in fact perpetrated the lie that this technology was imminent as 
recently as last August. We are still waiting. Consider Apple as a whole 
suitably and entirely skeptical about anything IBM says about the G5.

2) Yes, the G5 Quad Core uses the superior pure RISC technology, versus 
the crappy old and inefficient CISC technology. Yes, it is just as fast 
as ANYTHING that either AMD or Intel have to offer. It is 64 bit. Intel 
chips are NOT. AMD has superior/faster chips compared to Intel on every 
level EXCEPT for laptops.

3) The ONLY things the Intel Core Duo chips are good for, at the moment, 
are:

   a) Power efficiency/wattage/heat, exactly what is required in Apple 
laptops.

   b) Massive speed compared to ye olde G4 processors which are the ONLY 
PPC chips that will work in laptops.

4) Apple has NOT NOT NOT (NOT DAMMIT!) cut the Mac platform off from the 
PowerPC chip. Go to Apple's website and look up 'Universal Binary'!!!! 
In brief, programs that are written and compiled as Universal Binary 
will continue FOREVER to work on PowerPC chips. I hope that is simply 
and clear.


Results:

A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they 
very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved 
over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable! 
Notice how professional Mac users REQUIRE 64 bit computing because they 
absolutely DEMAND using more than a measly 4 GB of RAM. Do you think 
Apple are going to abandon their professional users by hobbling their 
tower Macs? No way, no how. And if they did, guess what would happen: No 
one would buy them. When will Intel go 64 bit? Not for AT LEAST another 
year.

B) Apple can jump to AMD if they like! In fact, if they want to they can 
sell Intel, AMD and PowerPC Macs all the time, any time they like. This 
has NOT even remotely compromised the Mac platform. Instead it has 
OPENED UP MORE POSSIBILITIES! This gives the Mac a much BETTER future 
than if it was stuck with PowerPC chips.

C) FAST Mac laptops. Deal with it: ALL Mac laptops were slower than an 
average (AVERAGE!) Wintel laptop.

D) Thanks to the virtualization technology war going on between AMD and 
Intel, the Mac is very soon going to be capable of hardware 
virtualization. This means running other operating systems along side 
Mac OS X, at the same time, at full speed. No more Virtual PC slug mode.

E) This also opens up the ability of DarWine to run at reasonable, near 
native speeds. DarWine is still vaporware, but theoretically it will 
allow running a large number (not all) of Windows specific applications 
inside Mac OS X without ANY installation of stupid old Windows.


Conclusion: Lots more choice, lots more speed in laptops, lots more 
choice of software to run, lots of second looks from traditional Windows 
PC users.

So do you still think Jobs should be tossed out for screwing the Mac? I 
don't think so.



In article <k1kn32tmfr2l1sia2fo351a5vv9ub28q26@4ax.com>,
 notell <jeep4parts2@verizon.net> wrote:

> Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?

Agreed!
 
> But here would be the better reason to lay off SJ
> 
> 
> Instead of all this hoopla about WinXP running on Intel Macs why don't
> they wake up and make the MacOS run on all intell machines?

Because Apple want to STAY IN BUSINESS!

I never understand why people ignore history. History is an incredible 
teacher. Go back and review exactly what happened when Apple DID license 
the Mac OS to other companies. Did Apple benefit? Even a little? Did 
their marketshare go up? Did sales of Macs, including clones, increase? 
Did the sale of Mac OS to 3rd party companies allow Apple to break even 
in profit? --> No. No. No. No. And No.

Apple's genius, their soul, is in controlling EVERYTHING in their 
computers. They are a hardware designer, manufacturer and distributor. 
Their software, all of it, is designed to work almost PERFECTLY with 
their hardware. The hardware and software are MARRIED. They could not be 
more compatible. This is why Apple continue to have REAL 'Plug and Play' 
and Windows has to this day been consistently stuck with 'Plug and 
PRAY'! Windows has to run on God-Knows-What hardware with God-Knows-What 
peripherals. The same goes with the software written for Windows. 
Developers have only a superficial idea what actual hardware their 
software will run on. Programs cannot take full advantage of PC hardware 
without a lot of luck. The result is HELLISH. It is one of the prime 
reasons I personally avoid Windows PCs like the plague. To me it is like 
trying to have a conversation with either a retard or a crazy person, 
depending upon the machine and software.

One thing Jobs brought with him from NeXT was YEARS of experience 
selling and supporting an OS for PCs. It was called NeXTStep/OpenStep. I 
have the BOOKLET that was distributed with the NeXT OS that described 
compatible PC hardware. The thing is over 50 pages long!!! And guess 
what: if your PC happens to have one piece of hardware that NeXT did not 
support then you were SCREWED. You could not run the NeXT OS. Imagine 
that.

Now imagine what Apple would have to put up with SUPPORTING Mac OS X on 
the chaotic variety of PC hardware! Technical support is EXPENSIVE! It 
is no wonder tech support is being shipped overseas to the 3rd world! 
Consider the simple (lord help you) example of being a tech support 
representative at Apple, having to know that entire 50 page booklet of 
compatible hardware, then going through that list with Joe Blow PC user. 
About 2% of PC users may comprehend what such hardware is, let alone 
know what particular hardware versions and models are incorporated into 
their specific PC. If you ever have pity on Microsoft, pity their 
technical support staff. They have a hard life.

The result: MASSIVE INCREASED COSTS to Apple, NOT profits, if they sold 
Mac OS X for any-old-PC. You can bet that the actual cost of buying Mac 
OS X would skyrocket to make up for the resulting losses in profit.


> They have been really missing the boat for many years...

Disgree. Again, history tells all. Read about it on the net!

> iTunes etc is what has saved them..

HAHAHAHA! You have to be kidding. 

1) It would be more accurate to say that the iPod is what brought in 
their recent rise to fame and exponentially higher profits and stock 
price. iTunes as a program is FREE and actually costs Apple money.

2) The iTunes Music Store does little more than BREAK EVEN! Nearly all 
the profits made there go to the record companies. (And in case you did 
not know, record companies make significantly MORE profit per downloaded 
song than they make per song on CD or single. Don't believe the RIAA and 
record company lies).

3) Apple, the Macintosh company, is doing just fine. Mac profits have 
risen steadily over the last two years as has marketshare (despite 
outright lies and ignorance to the contrary). If Apple dropped the iPod 
and iTunes Music Store tomorrow, they would continue as a company just 
fine, making a decent profit, pleasing millions and millions of Mac 
buyers every year. Never underestimate the continued success of the 
Macintosh.

BTW: How much cash does Apple currently have on hand, just in case they 
stopped making a profit on their products for a period of time? Only $8 
BILLION, enough that they just created a spinoff company this month to 
invest and manage their assets. Apple are what you call a 'Cash Rich' 
company. Oh! And how much of that $8 BILLION was made by iPod profits? 
Less than half. Before the iPod was released Apple had $4 BILLION in the 
bank, again pointing out that Macintosh profits have been doing just 
fine keeping Apple afloat, iPod or no iPod.

> The MacOSX is superior than anything else yet goes for <$100 ;

And as I noted above, one reason is that Apple know EXACTLY what 
hardware it runs on. There is no such thing as mystery PC hardware to 
deal with. Therefore technical support can be kept to a minimum. AND you 
get real (versus MS-style fake) Plug and Play along with the cheaper 
price.

> Windows 
> goes for more and they don't sell hardware and are making the all the
> money..

Again, MS have significantly higher support costs to pay for due to 
hardware chaos in the PC. Whether they actually gouge people with prices 
or not I will leave up to the courts. But I can tell you the every New 
York citizen who bought Windows is getting free vouchers worth several 
dollars (sorry I forgot the figures) to buy computer software because 
good old NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer kicked M$ in the ass and 
forced them to settle the NYS monopoly lawsuit against them out of court.

> When Apple ports their OS to PC's they will dominate the market.

Yawn. I hope all my chatter above has put that stupid idea out of your 
head.

Other points I can throw at you:

1) Macs have the lowest Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of any computer. 
This would disappear if MOSX was sold for generic PCs.

2) Mac have the best Return On Investment (ROI) of any computer. This 
would disappear if...

3) The number of IT staff required to provide support on a per computer 
basis is lower with the Macintosh versus the PC by a factor of 10x. This 
would disappear if...


Grand conclusion: Apple have NO compelling reason to sell Mac OS X for 
generic PCs. None. 

The only way Mac OS X would make it to a Joe Blow PC would be if Apple 
decide to fold up shop and made Mac OS X 100% OpenSource. (It is already 
about 90% OpenSource BTW. It's called the Darwin OS. It's free. It 
already runs on generic PC machines. DIY tech support). At that point 
the OpenSource revolution would reach its climax and Microsoft would be 
killed dead. Man, wouldn't that be great?! But it would also mean the 
death of the 'Macintosh' as well, which is that wonderful marriage of 
hardware AND software. That would truly suck.


Please stick around Mr. Jobs. You kick ass!

You let me be: Microsoft-Free Forever.

:-D

-- 
Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease 
of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge.
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/>
[Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded 
the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]

Derek Currie wrote:

<snip>

> 
> Results:
> 
> A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they 
> very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved 
> over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable! 

Erm... the Pentium D is 64 bit.  So are the EMT types as well.
But these chips are *power* hungry and requires a copper heat sink to 
dissipate the heat.
Of course the only o/s that M$ offers is their x64 version.  Running XP 
on a Pentium D is pretty stupid.

<snip>


>>Well, can it be inferior if the machine is now running 4 times faster?
> 
>

Tests have shown it to only be just barely twice as fast.  Where they 
get the 4x speed is beyond any reasonable belief.

<snip>

-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

In article <XI2dnUnqrP94edvZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
 GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:

> Derek Currie wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > 
> > Results:
> > 
> > A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they 
> > very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved 
> > over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable! 
> 
> Erm... the Pentium D is 64 bit.  So are the EMT types as well.
> But these chips are *power* hungry and requires a copper heat sink to 
> dissipate the heat.

This is heading off topic, but: 

Considering the demand for professional users to have 64 bit Macs in 
order to break the 4 GB barrier, do you think Apple will toss the 
Pentium D into Mac towers this year? It is entirely possible my 
predictions about Apple waiting for 64 bit Core Duo chips could be blown 
out of the water.

This might be acceptable to current Mac tower (PowerMac) users if and 
only if the Pentium D can beat the speed of the upcoming Quad Core G5s.

Feasible?

Thanks for the info GreyCloud. 

:-D

-- 
Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease 
of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge.
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/>
[Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded 
the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]

Derek Currie wrote:

> In article <XI2dnUnqrP94edvZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d@bresnan.com>,
>  GreyCloud <mist@cumulus.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Derek Currie wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>Results:
>>>
>>>A) Apple can CONTINUE to use PowerPC chips on into the future. And they 
>>>very well might do that! Notice how the G5 towers have NOT been moved 
>>>over to Intel! Notice how NONE of the Intel chips are 64 bit capable! 
>>
>>Erm... the Pentium D is 64 bit.  So are the EMT types as well.
>>But these chips are *power* hungry and requires a copper heat sink to 
>>dissipate the heat.
> 
> 
> This is heading off topic, but: 
> 
> Considering the demand for professional users to have 64 bit Macs in 
> order to break the 4 GB barrier, do you think Apple will toss the 
> Pentium D into Mac towers this year? 

Nope.  I did enough research to know that the PPC still kicks the 
Pentium Ds butt.  The PPC has a much lower power dissipation than that 
power hog called a Pentium D.  You should see the size of the copper 
heat sink!  Big enough to cool a Ford V8.

> It is entirely possible my 
> predictions about Apple waiting for 64 bit Core Duo chips could be blown 
> out of the water.

I'm only guessing at this point in time, but Intel has been working on 
that processor called the Itanic.   It is 64-bit, but a bit slower than 
the AMD64.  But in time, they may have all the bugs wrinkled out of it. 
  Currently, the HP super Dome can't use the chips yet as the Itanium 
can't perform to the expected specs.
The point being that Intel will gain some significant experience and 
advantages once the hurdles are cleared.  Then we may see some serious 
cpus from Intel.


> 
> This might be acceptable to current Mac tower (PowerMac) users if and 
> only if the Pentium D can beat the speed of the upcoming Quad Core G5s.
> 

It can't.  The quad cores are the best still.  But I also see AMD 
pushing the limits on chip space by pushing into the quad cpu per chip 
space.  The battle is on, but I hope that both companies don't get into 
a free for all like Texas Instruments and Atari did in the 80s and 
destroying each other in the process.

> Feasible?
> 
> Thanks for the info GreyCloud. 
> 
> :-D
> 


-- 
Where are we going?
And why am I in this handbasket?

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a
> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979, and was SO
> HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
> desks?  Come on, now, be honest...

Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.

The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under
$100 for the kit.
-- 
Lars T.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Tr�ger wrote
(in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
> 
>> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a
>> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979, and was SO
>> HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
>> desks?  Come on, now, be honest...
> 
> Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.
> 
> The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under
> $100 for the kit.
> 


Well, Lars,  I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it 
cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it.  It must have been 
close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it.  Of 
course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had only 
recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32).  This was 
sometime after the "zx-81" was released.    I purchased a  "Timex-Sinclair 
ZX-81".    Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma, where I 
purchased it, it cost less than $30.

The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked 
with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys.  I had to 
connect a tape recorder to save files or load them.  If I remember correctly, 
it had 8k of memory.

Call me a liar all you want.  I know what I did.

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

In article <0001HW.C06D5E980003C26FF0407530@news20.forteinc.com>,
Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> Well, Lars,  I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and
> it cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it.  It must have
> been  close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it.  Of 
> course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I
> had only recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32).  This
> was sometime after the "zx-81" was released.    I purchased a 
> "Timex-Sinclair ZX-81".    Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma,
> where I  purchased it, it cost less than $30.

You're 61, and married her when you were 32.

29 years ago, then. 2006 - 29 = 1977

The ZX-81 was released in 1981 at a price of $99.95 in kit form,
$149.95 assembled. <http://oldcomputers.net/zx81.html>

I think you're misremembering the date. I believe the price you're
quoting, but that would likely have been mid 80s as the ZX-81 was being
liquidated, not late 70s before it was introduced.

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Tr�ger wrote
> (in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):
> 
> > Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a
> >> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979, and was SO
> >> HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
> >> desks?  Come on, now, be honest...
> > 
> > Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.
> > 
> > The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under
> > $100 for the kit.
> > 
> 
> 
> Well, Lars,  I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it
> cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it.  It must have been
> close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it.  Of
> course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had only
> recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32).  This was
> sometime after the "zx-81" was released.    I purchased a  "Timex-Sinclair
> ZX-81".    Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma, where I
> purchased it, it cost less than $30.
> 
> The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked
> with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys.  I had to
> connect a tape recorder to save files or load them.  If I remember correctly,
> it had 8k of memory.
> 
> Call me a liar all you want.  I know what I did.

Yeah, you just don't know WHEN you did it. And we are supposed to
believe what you tell us about dates when you didn't even where there.
-- 
Lars T.

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:16:18 -0700, Dave Balderstone wrote
(in article <200420061716182643%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_Sbalderstone.ca>):

> In article <0001HW.C06D5E980003C26FF0407530@news20.forteinc.com>,
> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
> 
>> Well, Lars,  I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and
>> it cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it.  It must have
>> been  close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it.  
>> Of 
>> course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I
>> had only recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32).  
>> This
>> was sometime after the "zx-81" was released.    I purchased a 
>> "Timex-Sinclair ZX-81".    Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in 
>> Oklahoma,
>> where I  purchased it, it cost less than $30.
> 
> You're 61, and married her when you were 32.
> 
> 29 years ago, then. 2006 - 29 = 1977
> 
> The ZX-81 was released in 1981 at a price of $99.95 in kit form,
> $149.95 assembled. <http://oldcomputers.net/zx81.html>

I just browsed to the site.  This definitely is the computer I purchased 
(whenever it was).
> 
> I think you're misremembering the date. I believe the price you're
> quoting, but that would likely have been mid 80s as the ZX-81 was being
> liquidated, not late 70s before it was introduced.

You're probably right, sir.  As I get older the years become harder to 
remember, and I also tend to "round off" dates, or associate them with events 
or memories, any of which could be in error on the timing.  I wouldn't doubt 
that I may have misremembered the year I purchased the thing. In addition, it 
was not the kit, it was assembled and finished, in a box from Timex-Sinclair. 
 It didn't even come with a cable to connect a tape recorder.  I had to 
purchase one separately at Radio Shack.
 
In fact, sometimes I can put a cold drink down on the counter in the kitchen, 
then walk a few feet into the living room and immediately forget that I even 
poured myself a drink.

But I do remember correctly the price I paid for the Timex-Sinclair Zx-81.  
You're probably right about it being liquidated about that time.  I just cant 
imagine it being in a local shopping mall for the price I paid for it.  I 
just happened to walk into a local pharmacy, and saw it in the case with the 
watches.  I guarantee you, I snatched it up immediately.  It was ok, for 
awhile, till I got a Radio Shack CoCo2 or a VIC-20 or  some such.  But it did 
teach me Basic.  And it DID put my hands on a "REAL computer", in the days 
when everyone else had to pay $250+ for anything else.

I also owned an Adam around that time, if I remember correctly.  Don't 
remember where I got it from, though.

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:32:14 -0700, Lars Tr�ger wrote
(in article <1he4euo.1md57k7x69622N%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):

> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Tr�ger wrote
>> (in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):
>> 
>>> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a
>>>> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979, and was SO
>>>> HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
>>>> desks?  Come on, now, be honest...
>>> 
>>> Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.
>>> 
>>> The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under
>>> $100 for the kit.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Well, Lars,  I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it
>> cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it.  It must have been
>> close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it.  Of
>> course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had 
>> only
>> recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32).  This was
>> sometime after the "zx-81" was released.    I purchased a  "Timex-Sinclair
>> ZX-81".    Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but in Oklahoma, where I
>> purchased it, it cost less than $30.
>> 
>> The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked
>> with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys.  I had to
>> connect a tape recorder to save files or load them.  If I remember 
>> correctly,
>> it had 8k of memory.
>> 
>> Call me a liar all you want.  I know what I did.
> 
> Yeah, you just don't know WHEN you did it. And we are supposed to
> believe what you tell us about dates when you didn't even where there.
> 

Lars, there really is no reason to respond so hatefully, sir.

But I suggest you read my response to Dave Balderstone.  It should help to 
clear up what I have said.

By the way, what does "where there" mean?

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:32:14 -0700, Lars Tr�ger wrote
> (in article <1he4euo.1md57k7x69622N%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):
> 
> > Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 13:45:08 -0700, Lars Tr�ger wrote
> >> (in article <1he2oma.w6shvfm7re3fN%Lars.Traeger@epost.de>):
> >> 
> >>> Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>>> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" (mine was a
> >>>> Timex-Sinclair ZX-81, cost me $24.95.  I purchased it in 1979, and was SO
> >>>> HAPPY TO HAVE it),  RAVED about actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your
> >>>> desks?  Come on, now, be honest...
> >>> 
> >>> Gee, wait till GOD hears about your claims.
> >>> 
> >>> The ZX81 came out in 81 (who would have guessed) and cost a little under
> >>> $100 for the kit.
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Well, Lars,  I bought my first computer (a Timex-Sinclair ZX-81) , and it
> >> cost less than $30 in a drugstore, whenever I bought it.  It must have been
> >> close to 1979, but that is the year I remember having purchased it.  Of
> >> course, I am now 61, and I was still in my early 30's at the time (I had
> >> only
> >> recently married my second wife, whom I married when I was 32).  This was
> >> sometime after the "zx-81" was released.    I purchased a
> >> "Timex-Sinclair ZX-81".    Perhaps it may have been $100 in Europe, but
> >> in Oklahoma, where I purchased it, it cost less than $30.
> >> 
> >> The box itself was about 8"x 6", and had chicklet keys, which were marked
> >> with various Basic commands in addition to the alphanumeric keys.  I had to
> >> connect a tape recorder to save files or load them.  If I remember
> >> correctly,
> >> it had 8k of memory.
> >> 
> >> Call me a liar all you want.  I know what I did.
> > 
> > Yeah, you just don't know WHEN you did it. And we are supposed to
> > believe what you tell us about dates when you didn't even where there.
> > 
> 
> Lars, there really is no reason to respond so hatefully, sir.

And that's why I didn't respond hatefully at all. Stop projecting.
-- 
Lars T.

Mitch wrote:
> In article <OoR0g.3769$iB2.2376@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, TheLetterK
> <theletterk@spymac.nosppam.com> wrote:
> 
>> OS X was an x86 
>> operating system well before it was ever released on PPC.
> 
> Huh?
> At that time, Apple was entirely developing on and for PPC; why do you
> suppose that x86 code predates PPC code?

Because they took an operating system that ran on x86 (and a few other 
platforms) and ported it to PPC? Early developer releases of the project 
that would end in OS X came in both x86 and PPC releases. The x86 
releases eventually disappeared.

> 
>>> If I remember correctly, Jobs assured everyone that OS X/Intel would ONLY
>>> be 
>>> supported on Apple machines.  In addition, he assured everyone that OS X 
>>> would never run on non-Apple machines, nor would Apple ever support a
>>> generic 
>>> version of OS X/Intel, or Windows on an Apple Machine.
>> And they aren't supporting Windows on a Mac. Really, go call up Apple's 
>> tech support and ask for Windows help with your dual-booting Mactel.
> 
> Why?
> Why would you go to Apple for support with a product made by Microsoft,
> written by Microsoft, and supported by Microsoft? Isn't that like going
> to a surgeon for help with your pet dog?

Yes, I agree--it's a stupid expectation to have. However, it is what was 
insinuated.

> 
>>> In addition, the first developer kits were normal Intel PCs,  including
>>> BIOS 
>>> chips, and without Apple's EFI chip.
>> OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even 
>> conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.
> SDKs released to for x86 processors does not mean that the OS was ever
> being made to work under x86

It wasn't an SDK. Developer releases are a sort of pre-release of a 
piece of software, intended for developers to play around with. It was a 
full operating system, albeit not ready for consumer use..

> -- it was just recognizing that some
> developers used x86 hardware to produce.
> I think you are talking about the tools, not the product.

I'm talking about the full operating system. Rhapsody DR1/DR2 was an x86 
operating system (though there was also a PPC version by that time). 
This was one of many reasons why I was quite sure that Apple had been 
maintaining an x86 version of OS X behind the scenes.


-- 
"There is nothing I understand." - Shit

In article <0001HW.C067CB4A004FA5A2F0488530@news20.forteinc.com>,
 Donald L McDaniel <orthocross@skycasters.net> wrote:

> I heartily agree.  Apple's "just work" for a simple reason:  Apple has TOTAL 
> control over the hardware environment as well as the software environment.  

Fer shur.

> Microsoft, on the other hand, tried to put a computer on ANYONE's desk

Well, anyone who wants a DIY PC that is.

> not 
> just the desks of the Elitists.  

Excuse me? Mac buyers and users are 'Elitists'? 

Disagree. Thrifty? Yes. Demand quality? Yes. Demand real 'Plug and 
Play'? Yes. Into elegant design? Yes.

Elitist? No.

Thus the existence of comp.sys.mac.advocacy! We Mac users most 
definitely post here because we want to 'Share The Joy!' and nothing 
less. No snobs allowed.

> With the thousands of device manufacturers 
> and software developers out there who produce products for the Windows OS, 
> it's no wonder they don't always work as they should.

It's called 'Plug and PRAY' and it still exists on Windows PCs.

> And I also agree that poorly-written device drivers are the main reason for 
> Window's instability.  But Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not, as a general 
> rule, write device drivers.  They leave that up to the Market, while Apple 
> controls EVERY aspect of its OS and machine, even providing the device 
> drivers.

Well, this is not exactly true. Apple do indeed write all drivers 
specific to all the hardware inside a Mac. As for peripherals, the 
drivers are the responsibility of the manufacturer. There are such 
things as crap drivers for Mac. I recently ran into one from ADS for one 
of their PCMCIA cards. Meanwhile the exact same driver works like a 
charm with their PCI card.

> Again, Microsoft chose a different path.  They chose to make THOUSANDS 
> millionaires, rather than  a FEW, as Apple did.  This is because of Mr. Job's 
> greediness, pure and simple.

WHAT?! You got this concept from what planet? Certainly Mr. Jobs never 
quite took the spiritual path to enlightenment, gave away all his 
wealth, shaved his head and went about chanting 'Hari Krishna' begging 
for food. He's made a LOT of money. But how does Apple's path to 
superior computer architecture and operating system, in coordination for 
complete control of nearly all the variables, equate to GREED by ANYONE? 
Who is being parasitized here? I can point to MILLIONS being parasitized 
by Bill Gates and his VERY greedy/incompetent company. But Apple? Jobs? 
I don't think so.

No way is Apple perfect. In the future there WILL be better alternatives 
(DAMMIT!). But by FAR Apple took the better path to computer progress.
--------------------

Now we veer into Off Topic territory:

> How many of you elitists, when you got your FIRST "computer" . . . RAVED about
> actually having a REAL COMPUTER on your desks?  Come on, now, be honest...

Consider me prescient, but I knew way back in the day, that the 
computers I was using were crap. I used them grudgingly and waited very 
impatiently for them to get-the-hell better.

I learned programming on this horrifying mainframes that forced you to 
punch out a big computer card just to write a single (1) line of code. 
If you mis-typed even one character in your program you were royally 
f*cked. Pure drudgery and pain.

My actual first desktop computer was a DEC Rainbow. What a POS! But it 
worked. No way did I rave about it. I hated it. But it did what menial 
little things CLI computers could do in those days.

My second computer was an IBM XT. Another POS! I hated it. But 
programming was getting more interesting at that time, you could 
actually put something useful onto a floppy, so I put up with it.

Then I got a Macintosh SE. I RAVED!!!!! about it!!!!!

Real computers had arrived, for my taste anyway. And they got 
dramatically better. But I have to say, I have such nostalgia for that 
old SE! It had a measly 8 MB of RAM, an incomprehensibly small hard 
drive, 1.4 MB floppy drives. You'd think it would make me ill to 
remember. But it allowed my imagination to fly compared to the sh*t 
before it. 

Today that experience lives on, in 256 colors, on my now antiquated Palm 
IIIc which is still my constant companion and still works great. It has 
the same lousy 8MB of memory, but it does me just fine for keeping my 
brain on time, keeping my address book up to date, writing documents, (I 
love WordSmith), playing those cute old 2D games, and thanks to a cute 
little camera add-on that Kodak created, it even lets me take web 
quality pictures! Palms only got better. Lesser imitations abound.


:-D

-- 
Fortune Magazine, 11-29-05: What's your computer setup today?
Frederick Brooks: I happily use a Macintosh. It's not been equalled for ease 
of use, and I want my computer to be a tool, not a challenge.
<http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/12/12/8363107/>
[Frederick Brooks is the author of 'The Mythical Man Month'. He spearheaded 
the movement to modernize computer software engineering in 1975]

Donald L McDaniel wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:50:25 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
[snip]
> >
> > OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even
> > conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.
>
> I actually was not aware that the NeXT OS was developed on an Intel.  Thank
> you for educating me.  I assumed that Mr. Jobs built the NeXT cubes and
> developed an OS (the NeXT OS) for it.

NeXTStep was developed on a Sun3 (Moto 68030) and could run Sun3
binaries.
OpenStep was PORTED to Intel 386 and various RISK processors.
NeXT made a dual processor Moto 88000 but gave up hardware
 shortly after Apple dropped their Moto 88000 efforts and chose IBM.
Pity. I would have loved a dual 88000 NeXT.
The PowerPC port probably began at Apple.
I wonder what machine(s) they used to do this port?
> 
[snip]

In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>,
 John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:

> RE the posting:
> <<  The risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and wide-spread
> disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware. >>
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised if - within two years - Apple is selling a boxed
> version of "OS X for Intel-based computers".
> 
> Impossible, you say?
> 
> Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested that
> Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the Intel
> chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
> 
> But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
> announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able to
> boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible to
> boot Windows on a Mac?
> 
> But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the
> shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to
> install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support
> Windows-booting on Apple products?
> 
> Boy, times change fast around here. Never say "never".

Microsoft didn't get so big by selling at 25% profit.  Its always much 
more profitable selling an intellectual product (like software) than a 
hardware product.  With Apple's meager OS marketshare, and their great 
design of an OS, it only makes sense to grab what is rightfully theirs.  
Hardware sales can only take you so far.  How long will Apple have their 
head in the sand?  "Do what you do best."  Many wise people admonish 
others with that.  Too bad companies don't heed it.  Imagine Apple doing 
nothing but focusing on their OS.  No Finder, iPhoto, Aperture, and the 
other trivial lousy programs they waste their time with.  Mail and 
Safari are barely good enough but if they vanished, would anybody really 
miss them with so many others that are so good?  No imagine that OS 
working (like the Parallel concept) simultaneously with Windows and 
Linux.  They would sell so many copies of an OS not plagued with 
viruses.  Not to mention so many other advantages over Windows.

In article <noemail-1C241E.18410330042006@shawnews>,
 aaJoe <noemail@nospam.org> wrote:

> In article <443DB56B.83C81E4C@snet.net>,
>  John Albert <j.albert@snet.net> wrote:
> 
> > RE the posting:
> > <<  The risk in moving to intel cpus is the potential creation and 
> > wide-spread
> > disemination of bootleg MacOS X that runs on generic pc hardware. >>
> > 
> > I wouldn't be surprised if - within two years - Apple is selling a boxed
> > version of "OS X for Intel-based computers".
> > 
> > Impossible, you say?
> > 
> > Hmmm, OK. But remember in recent years, how - whenever someone suggested 
> > that
> > Apple was developing a "parallel version" of OS X that would run on the 
> > Intel
> > chips - Apple fervently denied they would _ever_ do that?
> > 
> > But remember how, only short months ago, when the first Intel Macs were
> > announced - when some folks suggested that Intel-based Macs might be able 
> > to
> > boot Windows, too - that Apple fervently denied it would ever be possible 
> > to
> > boot Windows on a Mac?
> > 
> > But remember when, earlier this year when the very first Intel Macs hit the
> > shelves, how - when some folks wondered if they could tinker with them to
> > install Windows - Apple fervently stated that they WOULD NOT support
> > Windows-booting on Apple products?
> > 
> > Boy, times change fast around here. Never say "never".
> 
> Microsoft didn't get so big by selling at 25% profit.  Its always much 
> more profitable selling an intellectual product (like software) than a 
> hardware product.  With Apple's meager OS marketshare, and their great 
> design of an OS, it only makes sense to grab what is rightfully theirs.  
> Hardware sales can only take you so far.  How long will Apple have their 
> head in the sand?  "Do what you do best."  Many wise people admonish 
> others with that.  Too bad companies don't heed it.  Imagine Apple doing 
> nothing but focusing on their OS.  No Finder, iPhoto, Aperture, and the 
> other trivial lousy programs they waste their time with.  Mail and 
> Safari are barely good enough but if they vanished, would anybody really 
> miss them with so many others that are so good?  

trivial, lousy? 

Let's enumerate them, shall we? 

Mail - it's about on par with Eudora; there's one feature i wish it 
would have that Eurora has. But it doesn't hammer my disk drive the way 
Eudora does when mailboxes get large. 

Safari - made Internet Explorer look like a slug. IE could not compete 
in the market and eventually died. Mozilla was sort of fading away and 
Firefox took a while longer to arrive. Safari forks for me. 

iChat - Simple to configure, easy to use. Works for me. Other clients 
exist, but I'm not really interested. 

iTunes - Simple to configure, easy to use. Integrates with online store, 
lets me rip and burn CDs, synchs my ipod, has cool visualizations, lets 
me make playlists and subscribe to podcasts. I've seen other Windows 
clients, and they all suck in comparison. 

iPhoto - I bought a used 2Mpixel camera last year. The guy who sold it 
to me warned me that it would be very difficult to find Windows drivers 
for it and impossible to get the Olympus application without paying for 
it, and it woudl never work with my Mac. I plugged it into my iBook. 
iPhoto launched automatically, identified the camera, and offered to 
download images from it. As a quick and easy photo editing and 
organizing tool, it's pretty cool. And I can still always use Photoshop 
or the Gimp if I want to. iPhoto works for me. 

Garageband - Now has two modes: classical notation for those who know it 
and time-based bar graphs for those who don't. It has simple, 
easy-to-learn instrument libraries and it talks to MIDI instruments. 
People have created really cool stuff with it. 

iMovie - Teenagers hate it because it's not as cool as Final Cut Pro, 
but I'm from the school that says you don't give a Porsche 911 to a 
teenager until he's wrung every last ounce of performance out of his 
Tercel and his 280Z. iPhoto can do 90% of what 90% of the users out 
there need it to do, including importing, seamlessly, tunes from iTunes 
and Garageband and images from iPhoto. If I need more than that, I'd 
better have someone paying me money for the pro tools. 

iDVD - No, you can't author some of the fancier DVD tricks with it, but 
it has done a remarkable job of simplifying the creation of hierarchical 
DVD menu structures. It has a nice collection of really cool themes and 
even lets you create your own. What's more, it cam import stuff from 
(all together, now) tTunrs, iPhoto, Garageband, and iMovie. 

Another important feature of these apps is that they work together so 
well. Sure, you can find individual apps that do all these things on 
Windows or Linux (but probably not as well -- and remember that having 
more knobs to frob doesn't by itself make it better), but they don't 
have the level of interapplication integration that these do. 

Backup, part of the .Mac set - Some backup tools are realy powerful and 
scriptable and customizable; many have strange fundamental concepts that 
dictate their entire UI. (Dantz retrospect, for instance.) Backup is 
what it is: a simple backup tool that makes it easy and painless to do 
backups. If you need more, then get more. 

And these are free or very inexpensive. Trump that! 

Now that I've seen these, if they vanished, I'd miss them. No, they're 
not professional-level tools, but that's not what they're meant to be. 

> No imagine that OS 
> working (like the Parallel concept) simultaneously with Windows and 
> Linux.  

What does that mean? 

Networking with them? It already does that. Running apps from these 
other operating systems? Well, on the Linux side it does that in a way 
that someone coming from Linux should find acceptable; it has X. Run 
Windows apps ... give it a year; they'll resurrect the yellow Box. 

> They would sell so many copies of an OS not plagued with 
> viruses.  Not to mention so many other advantages over Windows.

Unfortunately, people don't buy things because they are better. They buy 
on the Moo criterion.

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com

Timberwoof wrote:
> iMovie - Teenagers hate it because it's not as cool as Final Cut Pro, 
> but I'm from the school that says you don't give a Porsche 911 to a 
> teenager until he's wrung every last ounce of performance out of his 
> Tercel and his 280Z. iPhoto can do 90% of what 90% of the users out 

:-) I'm from the school that says you don't give a Porsche 911
to a teenager.  Nor a 280Z.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

In article <lFf5g.37336$C63.28154@trnddc06>,
 Wes Groleau <groleau+news@freeshell.org> wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > iMovie - Teenagers hate it because it's not as cool as Final Cut Pro, 
> > but I'm from the school that says you don't give a Porsche 911 to a 
> > teenager until he's wrung every last ounce of performance out of his 
> > Tercel and his 280Z. iPhoto can do 90% of what 90% of the users out 
> 
> :-) I'm from the school that says you don't give a Porsche 911
> to a teenager.  Nor a 280Z.

Okay, I'll go along with that. }: )    ("Awww, but Daaad!")

-- 
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com

On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 06:20:48 -0700, zit wrote
(in article <1145971248.596702.105890@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>):

> Donald L McDaniel wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 11:50:25 -0700, TheLetterK wrote
> [snip]
>>> 
>>> OS X was originally developed on x86 machines, well before EFI was even
>>> conceptualized. See; early Rhapsody developer releases.
>> 
>> I actually was not aware that the NeXT OS was developed on an Intel.  Thank
>> you for educating me.  I assumed that Mr. Jobs built the NeXT cubes and
>> developed an OS (the NeXT OS) for it.
> 
> NeXTStep was developed on a Sun3 (Moto 68030) and could run Sun3
> binaries.
> OpenStep was PORTED to Intel 386 and various RISK processors.

I hope you're not attempting to say that the i386 is a "RISC" (Reduced 
Instruction Set Computer), since it is actually a "CISC" (Complex Instruction 
Set Computer).

> NeXT made a dual processor Moto 88000 but gave up hardware
>  shortly after Apple dropped their Moto 88000 efforts and chose IBM.
> Pity. I would have loved a dual 88000 NeXT.
> The PowerPC port probably began at Apple.
> I wonder what machine(s) they used to do this port?
>> 
> [snip]
> 

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

On 2005-06-17 14:44:39 -0400, Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSPMync.net> said:

> In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
>  "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
> 
>> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
>> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
>> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
>> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
>> Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
>> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
>> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
>> technology.
>> 
>> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
>> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
>> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
>> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
>> jeaopardy and danger.
>> 
>> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
>> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.
>> 
> 
> Try thinking for a change. While the PPC has more legs, the fact that 
> IBM can't supply them, isn't interested in higher clock speeds and 
> isn't speeding towards a cooler running chip for laptops was the death 
> blow and not something Apple could control and SJ either. Out of SJ's 
> hands...if you think he was going to bully IBM, you're sadly wrong.

Good Advocacy Jim. Straight to the personal attacks. Grow Up!

In article <2006050214044611272-muahman@gmailcom>,
 Brian Pratt <muahman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2005-06-17 14:44:39 -0400, Jim Polaski <jpolaski@NOSPMync.net> said:
> 
> > In article <1119031617.138608.283570@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "abpp" <abpp@mail.com> wrote:
> > 
> >> I here by call to all TRUE Mac users to demand the immediate
> >> resignation of Steve Jobs. His stupid decision to change the Mac
> >> platform from a clear superior microprocessor to an inferior and
> >> old-designed one will destroy the Mac platform, if not the demise of
> >> Apple as a hardware maker. Please, make Steve Jobs understand that just
> >> because a chip provider doesn't abide by his extravagant demands as
> >> fast as he wants, he should not change a whole platform to an inferior
> >> technology.
> >> 
> >> Steve Jobs is not a CEO that can be trusted. Since he came back to
> >> Apple he always told us (and showed us) that PowerPC is superior than
> >> x86, and now he is just ignoring the truth. His egomaniac
> >> Bill-Gates-want-to-be attitute will put Apple and the Mac platform in
> >> jeaopardy and danger.
> >> 
> >> The soul of the Mac Platrform is not just the OS. It is all, the
> >> Hardware, the Software, and the users; all unique and special.
> >> 
> > 
> > Try thinking for a change. While the PPC has more legs, the fact that 
> > IBM can't supply them, isn't interested in higher clock speeds and 
> > isn't speeding towards a cooler running chip for laptops was the death 
> > blow and not something Apple could control and SJ either. Out of SJ's 
> > hands...if you think he was going to bully IBM, you're sadly wrong.
> 
> Good Advocacy Jim. Straight to the personal attacks. Grow Up!

Where is the personal attack in the quoted reply?   As far as I can 
tell, he his spot-on in the reasons for the intel switch.

BTW, even the "users are unique and special"?    Please.

Mike

In article <0001HW.C07CEA0C0054E9BDF0488530@news.wildblue.net>,
 Donald McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.net> wrote:

> > NeXTStep was developed on a Sun3 (Moto 68030) and could run Sun3
> > binaries.
> > OpenStep was PORTED to Intel 386 and various RISK processors.
> 
> I hope you're not attempting to say that the i386 is a "RISC" 
> (Reduced Instruction Set Computer), since it is actually a "CISC" 
> (Complex Instruction Set Computer).

He's not; if he were, he would have said "other various...", which he 
didn't say.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

On Tue, 2 May 2006 12:32:00 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-E19E51.12320002052006@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C07CEA0C0054E9BDF0488530@news.wildblue.net>,
>  Donald McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.net> wrote:
> 
>>> NeXTStep was developed on a Sun3 (Moto 68030) and could run Sun3
>>> binaries.
>>> OpenStep was PORTED to Intel 386 and various RISK processors.
>> 
>> I hope you're not attempting to say that the i386 is a "RISC" 
>> (Reduced Instruction Set Computer), since it is actually a "CISC" 
>> (Complex Instruction Set Computer).
> 
> He's not; if he were, he would have said "other various...", which he 
> didn't say.
> 
> 

How about we leave his answer up to him, Michelle.  It definitely would be a 
better answer.

You are simply giving YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he said, or didn't say.

Which is usually what we all do, I admit, but I really wanted his opinion, 
not yours (I know yours quite well).

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

In article <0001HW.C07F99C200399798F0488530@news.wildblue.net>,
 Donald McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.net> wrote:

> >>> NeXTStep was developed on a Sun3 (Moto 68030) and could run Sun3
> >>> binaries.
> >>> OpenStep was PORTED to Intel 386 and various RISK processors.
> >> 
> >> I hope you're not attempting to say that the i386 is a "RISC" 
> >> (Reduced Instruction Set Computer), since it is actually a "CISC" 
> >> (Complex Instruction Set Computer).
> > 
> > He's not; if he were, he would have said "other various...", which 
> > he didn't say.
> 
> How about we leave his answer up to him, Michelle.  It definitely 
> would be a better answer.
> 
> You are simply giving YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he said, or didn't 
> say.

I'm giving the grammatical explanation of what he actually did say.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.

On Thu, 4 May 2006 12:01:07 -0700, Michelle Steiner wrote
(in article <michelle-14FCA8.12010704052006@news.west.cox.net>):

> In article <0001HW.C07F99C200399798F0488530@news.wildblue.net>,
>  Donald McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.net> wrote:
> 
>>>>> NeXTStep was developed on a Sun3 (Moto 68030) and could run Sun3
>>>>> binaries.
>>>>> OpenStep was PORTED to Intel 386 and various RISK processors.
>>>> 
>>>> I hope you're not attempting to say that the i386 is a "RISC" 
>>>> (Reduced Instruction Set Computer), since it is actually a "CISC" 
>>>> (Complex Instruction Set Computer).
>>> 
>>> He's not; if he were, he would have said "other various...", which 
>>> he didn't say.
>> 
>> How about we leave his answer up to him, Michelle.  It definitely 
>> would be a better answer.
>> 
>> You are simply giving YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he said, or didn't 
>> say.
> 
> I'm giving the grammatical explanation of what he actually did say.
> 
> 

Of course, not all use proper grammar, especially here in the States, so how 
do you know he made a grammatical error?

Anyway, I still would like his answer, rather than your explanation (call it 
what you will) of what YOU think he actually said.  If I take his words at 
face value, he must have meant exactly what he said.

-- 

Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that the thread may be kept intact.
========================================================

In article <0001HW.C08223D900574473F0488530@news.wildblue.net>,
 Donald McDaniel <orthocross@invalid.net> wrote:

> >>>>> NeXTStep was developed on a Sun3 (Moto 68030) and could run 
> >>>>> Sun3 binaries. OpenStep was PORTED to Intel 386 and various 
> >>>>> RISK processors.
> >>>> 
> >>>> I hope you're not attempting to say that the i386 is a "RISC" 
> >>>> (Reduced Instruction Set Computer), since it is actually a 
> >>>> "CISC" (Complex Instruction Set Computer).
> >>> 
> >>> He's not; if he were, he would have said "other various...", 
> >>> which he didn't say.
> >> 
> >> How about we leave his answer up to him, Michelle.  It definitely 
> >> would be a better answer.
> >> 
> >> You are simply giving YOUR INTERPRETATION of what he said, or 
> >> didn't say.
> > 
> > I'm giving the grammatical explanation of what he actually did say.
> 
> Of course, not all use proper grammar, especially here in the States, 
> so how do you know he made a grammatical error?
> 
> Anyway, I still would like his answer, rather than your explanation 
> (call it what you will) of what YOU think he actually said.  If I 
> take his words at face value, he must have meant exactly what he 
> said.

If we take his words at face value, he did not say that the i386 is a 
RISC chip.

-- 
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease:  Impeach the son of a Bush.