Hey Andrew:
> The biggest problem I see with this shift will be the
> expectations that OS X will work on generic/other PCs.
> The stability of Mac OS has relied on the lack of
> available, "uncontrolled" hardware. x86 PCs OTOH can
> vary widely in chipsets and expansion capability. One
> only has to look at the Linux kernel configuration to
> see how many different drivers are available for the
> different hardware for just the typical desktop PC.
> This doesn't include servers and server expansion
> boards (SCSI, etc.).
This is an interesting point.. I'm inclined to believe that the variation among
the Apple machines won't be as great as in generic PCs. I.e., they'll choose an
Intel chipset and processor and run with it across several models. In comparison,
Windows deals with various chipsets and chips which no doubt contributes to the
instability we've seen. Keep in mind that there's also a lot of variation within
Apple hardware. Many (all?) systems shipped with a system enabler that was
specific to each model. It was not unusual to find variation among the same model,
different manufacture date.
> And there is this interesting fact about the G4.
> From
> http://it.asia1.com.sg/newsdaily/news002_20040119.html
> Based on the wickedly speedy next-generation
> processor, the G4 was so powerful that the US
> government classified the supercomputer as a
> weapon, restricting its export to 'sensitive'
> countries which could use it to theoretically
> design nuclear weapons.
>
> I don't recall any single x86 CPU being rated like
> this.
The wonders of Apple marketing :D The law in question was enacted when much lower
powered processors were the norm. Competing chips from AMD and Intel long ago
passed the same metric. But kudos to Apple's marketing arm for a clever campaign
(the tank commercial ranks right up there with the 1984 commercial).
> If I was in the market for a Mac, I'd still get a
> G4/G5. I would probably get one from the Apple outlet
> after the x86 versions came out, to save a buck and
> get a more stable system.
>
> Though, how much bloat does having binaries supporting
> both architectures incur?
They'll have completely separate binaries, bot the "fat" binary like the
PowerPC/680x0 switch.
Don't get me wrong... I'm a longtime Apple user and a former Apple store rep. Their
software is easy enough to use that I once demoed iMovie in front of a bunch of
CompUSA customers without the benefit of a manual (a mixup with the shipper caused
this). But their current machines are no match for a cheaper Linux/Windows machines.
In many ways this is a good thing for Apple. Their target market, for the most part,
don't care about what's under the hood. Sure, there are fanboys that can recite the
specsheets, but the Macintosh userbase is still heavily in the content/graphic
design and academic markets. Much to Microsoft's horror, many people don't care
about the OS itself. It's just a platform. I like to think that we (i.e. Linux
users) are a little more aware of the traps of a vendor-controlled OS, but I admit
that when I'm doing some video editing or rendering some image I don't even think
about the OS.
If Apple can seamlessly move their OS to Intel, dispense with lots of the hardware
development costs, get faster processors, then it's a good thing.
KL
>
> Apple's just happy that can get away with having
> another dual-CPU server with one socket;) For those
> unaware, dual-G4's are available as a single-socket
> unit. Not technically dual-core, though, as there are
> 2 separate CPUs on the "chip".
>
-- * The Digital Hermit http://www.digitalhermit.com * Unix and Linux Solutions kwan@digitalhermit.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:04:36 EDT