James Haydon wrote:
>
> On Friday, June 10, 2005, at 06:09 PM, Ken Elliott wrote:
>
>>>> 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
>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Has anyone noticed no mention of AMD or is it just me?
>
> James
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, I noticed it. I think Intel has a higher rep with nontechnical
people. I have been using AMD for years. I think AMD has a better
approach to 64 bit computing. As others have said, I think they
don't want to have to deal with the gamut of PC varieties out there
and will keep to a limited family of customized Intel chips.
Richard Smoot
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 - 20:06:12 EDT