From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 7 23:28:16 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EAFC16A41C for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:28:16 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from duo@digitalarcadia.net) Received: from ylpvm29.prodigy.net (ylpvm29-ext.prodigy.net [207.115.57.60]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 117E343D4C for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 23:28:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from duo@digitalarcadia.net) Received: from pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (pimout3-int.prodigy.net [207.115.4.218]) by ylpvm29.prodigy.net (8.12.10 outbound/8.12.10) with ESMTP id j57NS2Ce000983 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:28:02 -0400 X-ORBL: [68.254.53.94] Received: from digitalarcadia.net ([68.254.53.94]) by pimout3-ext.prodigy.net (8.12.10 milter /8.12.10) with ESMTP id j57NSAIJ401210 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 19:28:14 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (monolith.digitalarcadia.net [10.0.1.74]) by digitalarcadia.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47C7D1ED5EF for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2005 18:29:21 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <42A62D8D.2020100@digitalarcadia.net> Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 18:28:13 -0500 From: Duo User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (Windows/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org References: <42A4FD3F.70407@pacific.net.sg> <44y89mb1e0.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <20050607175303.GA96525@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> In-Reply-To: <20050607175303.GA96525@Grumpy.DynDNS.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: apple moving to x86 X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Jun 2005 23:28:16 -0000 David Kelly wrote: >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. > > Uhm, for the last several years, they have been using alot more "commodity" hardware, from AGP Video cards, etc. I cannot speak to x86 compliance, but, using commodity hardware, they most certainly have been doing. What do you call PCI/VGA? How about USB? USB wasnt even considered a commodity until it was slapped into an iMac. As someone who cut his teeth with Apple hardware, this is a glaring piece of misinformation. Sorry for the harsh tone, but, the days of "mac only" monitors, the Mac boot ROM, etc, have been long gone for awhile now. About the only difference in the boot ROM dept, would be the use of OpenFirmware, which is forth based, as opposed to BIOS, which in my opinion, has made it far more functional than a traditional bios. What happens with OF now is somewhat of a mystery. But, I think, by and large, this makes Macs a bit more extensible. As for Apple's insistance they "wont allow" OS X to be run on anything other than sanctioned Mac hardware, id like to point to similar statements from the MPAA regarding DVD, etc. I give it two weeks from the retail release of OS X for intel, before we see a slashdot entry. >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. > > > On this, I do agree. I think Mac hardware lives up to a better standard of quality than most x86 machines, BUT, I would also surmise, as Microsoft consistantly has sold products to people who knew they were flawed, that this is a 50/50 proposition. At best. One thing, that I am insanely curious about, is, will this make endian issues in sourcecode not ported to PPC go away for the most part? Specifically in regard to networking (client/server)? -- Duo.