Date: 07 Jun 2005 14:10:15 -0400 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-chat-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: apple moving to x86 Message-ID: <44acm2m41k.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> In-Reply-To: <20050607175303.GA96525@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> References: <b41c755205060614186bb2a201@mail.gmail.com> <42A4FD3F.70407@pacific.net.sg> <c389a04d050607070752998e86@mail.gmail.com> <44y89mb1e0.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20050607175303.GA96525@Grumpy.DynDNS.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Kelly <dkelly@hiwaay.net> writes: > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:03:03PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > > Jared <krod77@gmail.com> writes: > > > > > I have heard rumors of this, I hope they do, at least make the mac x86 > > > compliant. > > > > That's their plan. It was in the business section of my morning paper > > today. > > No, that is NOT Apple's plan. Apple's plan is to use Intel CPUs. It has > nothing to do with "make the mac x86 compliant" or to use commodity PC > hardware. I thought "x86" referred to the CPU family, not the system architecture. In fact, I still do: but on re-reading the message to which I was responding, I realize that "compliant" must refer to the latter rather than the earlier. I hope I didn't confuse anyone. > I think Apple will cause the PC market to clean up their act. To make > hardware that actually does what it says it will do. Something Microsoft > either never understood or lacked the guts to enforce. I don't see where the pressure for that kind of change would come from. Neither company has ever made many specific claims about what the hardware should do. And I'm not sure they should; I'm really not a fan of general purpose computing systems being tied to specific hardware.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44acm2m41k.fsf>