I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft. -- Computer House Calls, Networks, Security, Web Design: http://www.emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com What businesses are in Brunswick, Maryland? Check Brunswick First! http://www.checkbrunswickfirst.com My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/
From: William Warren <hescominsoon at emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com>> I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel > switch.It means that IBM thinks like a foundary, not like a PowerPC partner. Let's face it, for Sony and Microsoft, they make millions of units of the exact same product. For Apple, they are wanting multiple products with 1/10th the volume. So this wasn't a surprise, especially with Intel courting Apple since '03. It also explains why Apple didn't go AMD, even though they were using HyperTransport for I/O interconnect on the PowerPC 970/G5 (although not the full NUMA/HyperTransport that A64/Opteron does). AMD can't offer the "preferred status" deals/margins that Intel can.> This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of > BSD directly into the mainstream.Well, I always thought Apple was mainstream. It's still not a PC. It won't run on all PCs. That's fine, I always liked Apple's designs more. If they become the economies-of-scale competitor to Dell, that's fine with me -- and I'll even pay 20% more than Dell for them. In fact, I hope to God that Apple's firmware ends up being a standard approach that replaces the God awful PC BIOS. Even if Apple won't ever open it up so MacOS X runs on regular PCs, at least it will be nice to see a good firmware on a PC platform for once! (God I hate the PC BIOS compared to countless other platforms!)> What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and > microsoft.It means that you'll be able to tri-boot. And if Apple does as good of a job on the new PC firmware that they did on their PowerPC, then multi-boot geometry/conflicts are a thing of the past. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:48 -0400, William Warren wrote:> I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel > switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of > BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux > in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.Yawn. Apple in their right mind would never allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It may have an Intel chip in it, but it's still not a PC. -- Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazquez at ivazquez.net> http://centos.ivazquez.net/ gpg --keyserver hkp://subkeys.pgp.net --recv-key 38028b72 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050607/3b10dcc0/attachment-0004.sig>
William Warren wrote:> I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. > This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly > into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on > the desktop..and microsoft.Its been made clear that OSX will not run on commodity h/w and will be restricted to Apple h/w. There might be some form of a functionality that allows other x86 OS's to run ( Windows has been mentioned ) as a dual boot option. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ GnuPG Public Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:03, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:> On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:48 -0400, William Warren wrote: > > I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel > > switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of > > BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux > > in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft. > > Yawn. Apple in their right mind would never allow OS X to run on > commodity hardware. It may have an Intel chip in it, but it's still not > a PC.So how long will it take for someone to add Mac emulation to Xen, VMware, VirtualPC, etc. so OS X won't know its running on commodity hardware? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
> I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel > switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of > BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux > in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.Users of Apple are mainly musicians, graphic designers and etc. Artists prefer to MAC OS. They will welcome to the switching, because Mac will get fast, and they won't use CentOS on Mac.
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:48 -0400, William Warren wrote:> I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel > switch.My opinion is that this discussion doesn't belong on this list.... Try slashdot or something. This list is already full of off-topic discussions. --jesse
William Warren wrote:> I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. > This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly > into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on > the desktop..and microsoft.Somebody I know (not Apple related) gave me this opinion. Apple -> Intel could be because Apple has the IP to PPC and since IBM don't want to play, Apple will just find another manufacturer. Intel make sense because AMD does not have capacity.