 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in Hardware/Software. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006 |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
iamhiro1112 Armos Level: 35  Posts: 458/487 EXP: 259927 For next: 20009 Since: 03-27-04 From: sd Since last post: 18 days Last activity: 7 days |
| ||
| I think I heard about this on the radio. Apple is making some big changes. Hopefully it will attract more for them, not that I use apple but I like to support the underdog. | |||
neotransotaku Baby Mario 戻れたら、 誰も気が付く Level: 87 Posts: 3151/4016 EXP: 6220548 For next: 172226 Since: 03-15-04 From: Outside of Time/Space Since last post: 11 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Originally posted by Taraleand it never will for as long as Jobs is still alive. Jobs is ruthless when it comes to Apple clones and will do what it takes to stiffle them. Supposedly, there will be something in the P4 processors that needs to be present for Apple OSes to run. Otherwise, the OS will not install (or not run at all). Apple left IBM because IBM wasn't offering the processing speeds they wanted--they lagged behind both Intel and AMD. An interesting quote from an article I read was there are some Apple users have grown to hate Intel... I wonder what is going to happen to them  |
|||
Kitten Yiffer Purple wand Furry moderator Vivent l'exp����¯�¿�½������©rience de signalisation d'amusement, ou bien ! Level: 135 Posts: 9868/11162 EXP: 28824106 For next: 510899 Since: 03-15-04 From: Sweden Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 4 min. |
| ||
Originally posted by neotransotakuSUICIDE! (...I really hope there won't be any such cases of fanboys thought.  )And oh, PowerPC emulation on X86 is possible as PearPC have shown but it's very slow. Infact a PowerPC have easier time to emulate X86 than what a X86 have with emulating PowerPC. And bleh, it was becuse of the IBM PC clones that the PC did get succefull... |
|||
|
||bass Programmer Admin Level: 44  Posts: 453/817 EXP: 570813 For next: 40472 Since: 03-15-04 From: Salem, Connecticut Since last post: 26 days Last activity: 11 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Kitten YifferDing ding ding ding ding!Originally posted by neotransotakuSUICIDE! Yes! It's true! The number 1 reason for x86's success is because IBM permitted other manufacturers to create clone systems. Had Jobs not been such a selfish idealist, Apple computers could have been in a larger market then the extreme minority market share they have now. Anyone think I'm wrong? Try this on for size then. There was a period when even Alphas were outselling Macs. |
|||
|
kitty Come on babe, pet the pussy ;) Level: 70 Posts: 1422/2449 EXP: 2962406 For next: 53405 Since: 03-15-04 From: Scranton, PA, USA Since last post: 3 hours Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| Yup, it is true. I have OLD magazines showing Apple II clones - they sucked (at best) but Apple forced them to stop due to copyright infringement and other BS. IBM made a killing because other companies used the same technology and the market expanded, where Apple just stayed in a small "Niche-market" that shortly will have nowhere to go. Don't forget, Intel did copy AMD64 so there's a chance that Apple computers will be x86-64. You can bet that Windows will install on Apple x86(-64?) machines, Billy will make sure of it. However, Jobs will make sure OS-X WON'T install on PCs. Be it a special string needed in the processor, to refusing to support drivers for PC components (in other words, you can't install the OS if it won't run on that nifty new nForce4 board you bought). PowerPCs, clock-for-clock, beat out AMD and Intel processors. However, Intel and AMD processors can run much faster speeds, which neutralizes that advantage, and makes the AMD and Intel chips faster overall. Especially the AMD chips, they run slower than Intel chips MHz-wise, but anihilate them! (edited by Yiffy Kitten on 06-08-05 09:46 AM) |
|||
VL-Tone Red Cheep-cheep Level: 23  Posts: 48/200 EXP: 64158 For next: 3565 Since: 06-06-04 From: In the Moon! Since last post: 5 days Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by ||bassOriginally posted by Kitten YifferDing ding ding ding ding!Originally posted by neotransotakuSUICIDE! I really don't feel like bumping this thread, but seriously, some of you here don't seem to know what they are talking about when it comes to Apple and computer history. I really don't want to insult anyone here, I just think you assume to many things and don't know enough about the situation. ||bass please, if you gonna get aggressive while arguing about this, I suggest reading a book about computer history. (not just some snippets on the web or some guy on slashdot) IBM never "permitted" cloning . When do you think the word "reverse-engineering" was first used in the media? When Compaq reverse-engineered the IBM PC BIOS. They had to do that because IBM didn't allow cloning. IBM saw what happened to Apple where they saw some of their profit fly into the hands of Apple ][ clone makers, and didn't want cloning either. MS was only there at the right time at the right moment, and being a software only company they could only profit from cloning. At the time when Apple was going after cloners simply to keep their profits high just like a company should do, it was really not clear that cloning would help MS take control of the market. Also, Apple had more legal ground there because most of the Apple ][ clones had copies of the Apple ROM. (it was not reverse-engineered) IBM was that reputed big computers company, and MS was lucky enough to be able to make others "IBM compatibles" and use the IBM reputation as a vector to sell many licenses. Apple did allow cloning Macs some years ago but Steve Jobs stopped the licensing because they were losing too much money at the time, as people stopped buying Apple machines. Jobs wasn't even at Apple when they switched to PPC, and unlike what many may think, maybe he would have switched to intel instead. Jobs returned to Apple because he was head of NeXT computers at the time and Apple bought NeXT and used it's OS OpenStep as a basis to build what is now Mac OS X. Now OpenStep had been ported to the x86 a long time before and it was sold as an OS that could run on just about any x86 box, and this was Jobs company remember. This OS was much more robust and powerful than Windows and the Mac at the time, but it had a problem: there was not much software for it, and even if the first Web Browser was designed on a NeXT, most apps were specialized workstation level programs. It was a chicken-and-egg situation and OpenStep failed by any measure to capture the media attention and market share. Now that literally 10,000+ apps including many consumer level apps have been ported to Mac OS X, Apple can afford to first switch to intel, because OpenStep now OS X and XCode makes it much easier to port apps than it would have been in the Mac OS 8-9 days. Once they transition to intel and have most of the apps ported, they can decide to open the floodgates and release OS X intel for a good part of the x86 boxes. They have to be ready to fight MS directly when they do that. In the meantime, I can see HP branded x86 machines running OS X (and Windows) somewhere in the future just like there are HP's iPod. Kitten Yiffer (hey I'm not angry about you, even with your over-the-line suggestion), I would like to point out that Apple bought technology from a company called Transitive which is a very fast live code translator, so they could run Mac PPC apps on OS X for intel at a reasonable speed. It is much faster than PearPC and is integrated transparently to the OS, just double-click the app like normal and it starts. Transitive say they don't call it an emulator because it's more than that. They say it could bring 60-80% of the speed and considering that it will run on faster/cheaper intel CPUs it will be good enough for most users. One reason it's much faster than PearPC is that any call to the OS API's run natively on x86. And no CherryOS wasn't running at 80% the speed...CherryOS is cancelled and the company is now suing a blogger that proved that a part of their code was stolen from PearPC. (and just to cover my ass, the blogger said it, not me!  ) Incidently, CherryOS was the name of the Mac parody OS on Skinner's computer in the old CD-ROM game "Virtual Springfield".As for me being out of my mind for doing ROM hacking on the Mac, first I can run all those Win32 ROM hacking apps in VirtualPC, albeit the thing is too slow at time for my modest comp. VirtualPC will run at almost full speed on an intel Mac, so I could have all these apps running and do things like a VirtualPC "savestate" so that I can get them almost instantly without having to boot Windows in VPC. Also Tile Molester runs natively on the Mac (thanks SnoBrow  ) and there are some (rare) GBA dev tools for OS X.Anyhow, I started to do ROM hacking at a time when Windows ROM utilities were rare, and just like I have fond memories of old primitive games, I like to do ROM hacking, the old-school way, with an hex editor, an emulator cheat finder, some disassemblers and sometimes even Photoshop(!) I also build myself little programs to help my find or display things in ROMs. If some people are more inclined to do ROM hacking by using those admittedly powerful things like emulators with integrated tracers, I don't mind working with them if they show interest If some people don't like the tools I'm using then just too bad, do what you want with what I found about F-Zero and StarFox, I wouldn't be insulted at all if some group of people started to build a Windows only F-Zero or StarFox level editor by themselves based on some data I found.Now don't expect me to do any other rants in this board in the future, I never post in the Hardware/Software forum anyway (for obvious reasons). Also please don't reply to me listing all mistakes that Apple did over the years Some of them are myths, some of them are disinformation, but yes there are some bad things Apple did over time, I won't argue against that. Anyway you can either see this post as a rant from a crazy Mac zealot, or simply a way to learn more about that crazy VL-Tone ROM hacker and to try to guess why his ROM hacks are so crappy! (or both )Yes that's why I'm so weird, because my entire head is made up of an old Casio synth called the Casio VL-Tone (aka VL-1) see http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail72.swf for more details about it. (and by the way, this flash cartoon was not made on a Mac) |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - Apple to Use Intel Microprocessors Beginning in 2006 |
| | |
