Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 08:08:28 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <oceanare@pacific.net.sg> To: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-chat-local@be-well.ilk.org> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: apple moving to x86 Message-ID: <42A636FC.5090800@pacific.net.sg> In-Reply-To: <44acm2m41k.fsf@be-well.ilk.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> <44acm2m41k.fsf@be-well.ilk.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > 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 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. The PC is a very specific piece of hardware. Plus, it is also a very screwed one. Take a closer look at its interrupt and DMA systems. Both were outdated when IBM introduced the PC but the industry got stuck with them. Check the those systems in much older hardware from DEC or even from smaller systems like the Z-80. Many of the problems even FreeBSD has (had) would have never have appeared with the interrupt and DAM controllers at the peripheral's side, Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?42A636FC.5090800>