>>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.
I doubt it will be "more" stable.
The graphics board, hard disc drive, keyboard, mouse, power supply, DVD
drive, RAM and PCI bus are already the same as a PC. So the difference is
down to the CPU and motherboard chips. There's plenty of evidence that
Intel's chipsets are at least as stable as the PowerPC stuff. Most
stability issues are driver problems, or use of non-certified hardware.
There's plenty of rock-solid Intel-based servers out there running various
forms of Unix/BSD/Linux.
I have no doubt that Apple will restrict their OS to the products they
supply, and that will allow them to be as stable as current hardware. Would
you really want a PowerPC, knowing that development will stop on that
platform?
Ken Elliott
=====================
-----Original Message-----
From: slug@nks.net [mailto:slug@nks.net] On Behalf Of Andrew Barber
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 4:44 PM
To: slug@nks.net
Subject: Re: [SLUG] Apple shifts to Intel
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.).
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.
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?
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".
Andrew Barber
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 - 20:04:43 EDT