On 6/6/05, Liam Proven <lproven at gmail.com> wrote: CISC deserve it. CISC has compact code size, thus higher cache hit rate. DEC will do better with faster VAX than with Alpha. vax, 9000

Mac app when a Win app will do? Mac ceased to be relevant for exactly that reason ten years ago. -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Kaiser Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:19 PM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: Re: Apple Goes Intel... (OT added) It's bad news. I've been nauseous all day. I think by removing the last piece of "unique" out of modern Macs -- the PPC CPU -- Apple has just announced they're in the PC business. Once VPC gets to the point where Windows apps are no longer second class citizens in the Mac world (like they are under VPC now), and run at or near full speed, Macintosh will cease to be relevant because who would want to write a Mac app when a Win app will do? This is the same thing that killed OS/2. I'll buy a G5 before they disappear, and then find some new platform to colonize. -- ---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- The computer's running some sort of --- program!!! -- "Terminal", bad TV ---

I'm not trying to get anyone into a X vs. Y debate. I just that any differences or advantages of a non-PC desktop architecture today pretty much ARE irrelevant. Unless, of course, someone invents something with never-before-realized, can't-live-without advantages. The last such product In late 2000 or early 2001 - I forget which - I interviewed Marc Andreeseen about his latest company, Loudcloud (now Opsware). Asked him how someone could figure out the next killer app. He pointed out that new ways to achieve existing results won't cut it -- what's needed are ways to achieve new and better results. LOL, unfortunately, he followed that with a lame comment about how he didn't necessarily have those ways, but that Loudcloud could help its customers enable them. -----Original Message----- From: cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-bounces at classiccmp.org] On Behalf Of Cameron Kaiser Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:57 PM To: cctalk at classiccmp.org Subject: Re: OT: RE: Apple Goes Intel... Don't be disingenuous. This isn't about Mac vs. PC (which your comment is about); it's about the Mac architecture gradually losing any distinctiveness and by dint of this fact becoming just another PC architecture -- ostensibly an incompatible one at that, if Schiller's comments are to be believed. The same fate that befell SGI's transition to x86 is waiting for Apple. -- ---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- In memory of Greg Morris ---------------------------------------------------

On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 20:56 -0700, Cameron Kaiser wrote: Indeed. You'd think that Apple would have learned from others mistakes. Has there been any word from Apple employees about feelings within the company about this? cheers Jules

Jules wrote: Yes. The ones that are being laid off as a result of this are rather unhappy. This includes ASIC designers, sustaining engineers, and various others. I don't understand the people that are bitching about Apple giving up the "secret sauce" that makes the Mac unique. The secret sauce is MacOS, and they're not giving that up. To a normal user, the brand name of the CPU inside the box makes no difference. What amazes me is that Apple didn't figure this out and switch a lot sooner.

On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Eric Smith wrote: My question is: Given the ability of upcoming Intel (and AMD) CPUs to self-virtualize seamlessly, how long will it take for someone to hack up a "preboot" supervisor layer which will support OS X on a garden-variety PC? They would almost have to resort to hardware-based DRM voodoo to prevent it. Steve

Jules wrote: There's no reason to believe that they won't use AMD chips. Intel has a better low-power product for laptops (Pentium M/Celeron), and that's what they are starting with.

On Wed, 8 Jun 2005, Jules Richardson wrote: Ah, but that's the point of virtualization. The environment can be setup to look like something quite different from the actual hardware. Also, if Apple is really aggressively looking at cost savings, they'll be likely to use the Intel north and south bridge chipsets. Unless they plan on custom asics galore, there's a bound to how "different" the hardware can look. Steve

Look at all the proprietary HW+OS companies that have split the issue later, but... #1 Pre-Historians here seem to say that the granddaddy of the PC was a buggy 8086 on a buggy motherboard, other sources rave at the granddad of the G5, the 68000, for its cleanliness. Is there little real quality distinction now after all these years or is bugginess just a non-issue? I'm saying the loss of the G'n(n=2..5) is a real loss. - - - #2 Are there No books on the bugginess of the PC architecture? I just read a sentence on DEC begrudgingly making 'bug for bug copies of the PC', and there's raving here but No books? I'd settle for a good chapter or two. John A. Sounds like trolling, not meant to be.

Just get hold of the IBM PC, PC/XT, PC/AT, Options and Adapters, etc Techrefs. Read the schematics and the ROM sources. You'll soon see examples of what we moan about.... -tony

Irrelevant. Even if the OS were limited to run on "X-Tels," it doesn't matter. It's a hop, skip and a jump to allow Windows apps to run, unofficially with WINE and officially with VPC, under the Mac OS. With an x86 CPU, there's now no emulation penalty for doing so, and you can imagine Microsoft will leverage that. Once people discover that writing a Windows app will do just as well for *both* platforms, the need to write a Mac-specific one simply evapourates. Incidentally, one of the Apple developer documentation files states that there is no more Open Firmware in these Intel Macs. Even Apple doesn't always reinvent the wheel, so it may be nothing more than a locked-out BIOS on a bog-standard mo'bo'. That's hardly strong insurance against illegal installations off the ranch. -- ---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- If you're not very clever, you should be conciliatory. -- Benjamin Disraeli

From: "Jim Leonard" <trixter at oldskool.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2005 2:19 PM simply http://www.oldskool.org/ http://www.mobygames.com/ http://www.mindcandydvd.com/ Creating a homogenous environment is neither entirely good nor bad. Having a homogeneous environment stifles certain creativity and created a mindset of uniformity. Having a world full of clones be it people or Windoze PC's sounds scary to me. Randy www.s100-manuals.com

I just tried to email the guy but got a bounce. I'm in Pasadena, so that's not too far. Will try again. John At 8:44 PM +0100 6/8/05, Antonio Carlini wrote:

I really couldn't care less whether one crappy proprietary OS displaces another crappy proprietary OS. Maybe one is a little better than the other, or maybe even a lot, but I'm not throwing away my money on either.

Than an average whitebox PC, quite probably. But if you choose components for your whitebox PC carefully, I think you can get stuff significantly better than what Apple makes, for less money. I care about being able to buy reasonably inexpensive hardware to run non-proprietary operating systems (e.g., BSD or Linux). To the extent that Apple makes good hardware that can run those, I'm interested. If building x86-based hardware lets Apple produce lower-priced machines, I think that's a good thing. And I don't think the average user of a Macintosh really cares about what processor is inside it. If the software does what it's supposed to, that's what counts. Beyond that, it's all marketing. The "Intel Inside" campaign was evidently fairly successful in the PC market; it's unclear whether Apple will be willing to put "Intel Inside" stickers on their machines, but if they do it might actually result in a small increase to their sales. However, if Apple starts putting DRM in their hardware (e.g., Intel's LaGrande technology), such that it can't run unapproved operating systems, it will be useless as far as I'm concerned. DRM'd PC hardware that will only boot an operating system with a verified digital signature of an "approved" software company is Microsoft's wet dream; they want to eliminate both piracy of their OS and applications, and the use of free software alternatives. In that regard, Apple's motivations are aligned with Microsoft's, since they want to prevent piracy of OS X. So far Microsoft has claimed that the DRM features they're building into their software and pushing for inclusion into future hardware will not prevent running alternative operating systems, and will only be used to allow access to DRM'd content. That's bad enough, but I can reluctantly live with it, since I don't need that content [*]. But I think it's incredibly naive to expect that they will stop there, or that Apple won't jump on that bandwagon. If this happens, future computers will come in two classes: 1) Inexpensive, commodity hardware that can only run proprietary software 2) Expensive specialty hardware that can run free software, but cannot run the proprietary software. Extrapolating the trend further, we can expect to see software vendors push for restrictions and licensing on software development tools, debuggers, etc. See Richard Stallman's essay "The Right to Read". When I first read that essay, I thought he was overreacting, but the trends of the last few years (e.g., the DMCA, other countries enacting similar laws, the EU trying to adopt software patents despite the member states' parliaments voting against them, and the media companies pushing for even stronger laws) have convinced me that he is absolutely right to be worried. Eric [*] Up until it becomes impossible to get content that is non-DRM'd. What happens when you can't get the news, or your IRS 1040 form, without DRM? For those that don't think it will happen, consider that many government agencies worldwide routinely require the use of proprietary data formats (e.g., Microsoft Word, Excel) for interaction with the public. Microsoft claims that forthcoming versions of Office will use open data formats, but I'm skeptical. They're going to do that to the absolute minimum extent needed to avoid the $5M/day EU fine, but they'll still do whatever it takes to get customer lock-in.

Rumor has it that Paul Koning may have mentioned these words: Damn, Jay... shoot me now. I tried as long as I could to stay out of this... :-/ Just ask my Dual Athlon MP -- 4 years old, and my Apple friend begrudgingly admits that the hardware is *more* bulletproof than his. Oh, and don't ask him about *both* of his Dual G5's that he had to send back to Apple for a full refund as they were unstable as get-all. [ He still loves his iMac and iBook, tho. Personally, with the exception that Apple forgot 2 buttons for the pointing device, the laptop impressed me, too. They still don't have the battery life of my Crusoe based laptop, let alone my Model 200! ] Please don't make blanket statements before doing the research. http://www.hushtechnologies.com/start.html They've been around a lot longer than the Mini... There's even a silent PC review site: http://www.silentpcreview.com/article151-page1.html If you want to see something totally disgusting [yet somewhat ontopic] http://www.mini-itx.com/news/67432668/ A retailer specializing in super-quiet PCs, with decent prices: http://www.logicsupply.com/ Oh, and my Shuttle PCs, whilst not completely fanless, are rather quiet. These people made the Mini, even before the Mini: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT8574944925.html Almost 4 years ago! See above, especially the logicsupply site. Pffft. Google's an amazing thing, eh? Again, apologies to the list & all, but blanket statements bother me. Totally frelling incorrect blanket statements I can't just let pass by. Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger | "Bugs of a feather flock together." sysadmin, Iceberg Computers | Russell Nelson zmerch at 30below.com |

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Cameron Kaiser wrote: Wow, a full-scale old-school BBS-style platform flame war is breaking out. Get the kids so they can see what it was like in the olden days :) -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Hans Franke wrote: I got my first modem in 1985 or so, so yes, I did (ebulliently) engage in flame wars (platform and otherwise :) Screw you, buddy! :) -- Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org [ Old computing resources for business || Buy/Sell/Trade Vintage Computers ] [ and academia at www.VintageTech.com || at http://marketplace.vintage.org ]

You can keep those darn bittyboxes, I'll stick to my Beeb with second processor, thank you very much. (:-), in case you think I am serious) -tony

Curt @ Atari Museum wrote: Nah, Atari ST vs. Amiga :-) -- Jim Leonard (trixter at oldskool.org) http://www.oldskool.org/ Want to help an ambitious games project? http://www.mobygames.com/ Or check out some trippy MindCandy at http://www.mindcandydvd.com/

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: You wouldn't like it - he'd just lie there... Cheers John

Am 9 Jun 2005 9:43 meinte Vintage Computer Festival: At that time, flame wars where already history, in '85, only under age school kids where trying to recreate that feeling. The avant garde had already moved! There's always the H-Word! H. -- VCF Europa 6.0 am 30.April und 01.Mai 2005 in Muenchen http://www.vcfe.org/

Rumor has it that Vintage Computer Festival may have mentioned these words: My wife raises rabbits... A VCF-H (for Hasenpfeffer) supper nite? ;-) Laterz, "Merch" -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers zmerch at 30below.com Hi! I am a .signature virus. Copy me into your .signature to join in!

Rumor has it that Vintage Computer Festival may have mentioned these words: Ah... no. You don't want her cookin'... believe me. ;^> I'm the cook of the family; altho I have no formal training. I am, however, waiting for my midlife crisis which I feel is coming on very soon, when I quit computers altogether (well, the Wintel crap anyway) and go to culinary school... ;-) Just in case: don't hold your breath... ;-) Find me a kitchen down there and I'll whip up a mean gumbo, tho. ;-) Good news: I have the wife talked into going... with 1 caveat, unforch. I _may_ have some family from *way* out of town stopping by that weekend... still working out the itinerary on that. Should know for sure pretty soon, tho. Laterz, "Merch" -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers zmerch at 30below.com What do you do when Life gives you lemons, and you don't *like* lemonade?????????????

On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: Ah, the arrogance of youth! D'ya ever see an 026 punch interfaced to an external device? (Gerber "etch-a-sketch" style digitizer) Ever "UNpunch" a hole? By the 1970s, we old farts were struggling with interfacing RS-232 crap, trying to connect selectrics, and dealing with TPC (The Phone Company) wanting to charge extra for "data lines". By the 1980s, computers were being sold in retail stores! Where did all the fun go? ... and it was uphill in BOTH directions! -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

On Fri, 10 Jun 2005, Vintage Computer Festival wrote: Yes, I did find out. Thank you very much for helping me with that problem. "Three moves == one fire, but is a LOT more work." -- Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com

So why does a Vaio not do it for you? Sony has had their clinkers, but there are some rather nice Vaio systems out there. There is the expectation that someone might be able to cajole Windows to boot on the Intel Mac, and Microsoft might even support it. Phil Schiller even made some allusions to that, although the converse (Mac OS X on a commodity PC) would be explicitly verboten both by EULA and presumably in hardware. However, if Apple became another clone manufacturer, Apple sinks to the level of a Dell or Gateway. So I don't think Apple will ever openly push their Intel Macs as Windows machines, even if it were possible. It would sink them to try to compete on a commodity PC basis. And I'm beginning to see the point of view of people who say that Macs are defined by their operating system, not (so much) by the hardware. If there were an Intel Mac running Windows, it would have superior industrial design and hardware, but it would still be running Windows and subject to all the crap. It wouldn't, as you say, Just Work. -- ---------------------------------- personal: http://www.armory.com/~spectre/ -- Cameron Kaiser, Floodgap Systems Ltd * So. Calif., USA * ckaiser at floodgap.com -- The Devil can cite Scripture for his purpose. -- Shakespeare ---------------

On Thursday 09 June 2005 01:33, Jim Leonard wrote: Even the best hardware can't fix broken software... Pat -- Purdue University ITAP/RCS --- http://www.itap.purdue.edu/rcs/ The Computer Refuge --- http://computer-refuge.org

Patrick> IBM seems to be the one remaining major vendor of Patrick> "worthwhile" RISC-powered machines now, since Alpha has been Patrick> getting squashed by HPaq for a while now. There are others. If you want ready-built workstations, perhaps not, but in the embedded world, MIPS and ARM are both alive and well, with substantial advantages. To name just one example of a company doing interesting stuff, check out Raza Microelectronics. paul

On Tue, 07 Jun 2005 08:29:12 -0400 "Curt @ Atari Museum" <curt at atarimuseum.com> wrote: Note that todays IBM POWER chips are "nothing more" then PowerPC on steroids. Or better sayed a PowerPC, especially the G5, is a downsized POWER5. POWER / PowerPC will live on in IBMs server world. And don't forget the embedded market. There went way more PowerPCs into printers, cars, SoHo DSL routers, switches, DVD players, ... then im Macs. Remember MIPS? A big player in the workstation / Unix market. Now that SGI, the last MIPS user, switched to Itanicum, MIPS is dead in this market. But MIPS is _verry_ wide spreed in the embedded world. The amount of chips IBM is selling to Apple is tiny compared to there total silicon output. It cost IBM to much to improve the G5 / make it faster only for Apple. So they didn't, leaving Apple with a CPU that is faling more and more behind the x86 CPUs speed wise. Not to speak about the non-existing low power G5 for laptops. So the natural decision of Apple was to switch to somthing else. Unfortunately there is nothing else then x86 for this requirements. I don't like this switch, but I can understand Apples motivation. -- tsch??, Jochen Homepage: http://www.unixag-kl.fh-kl.de/~jkunz/

I doubt that, they "where" it's biggest buyer but i'm sure the xbox 2 will outsell all of Apples range. It also has 3 powerpc cpu's in it.. The Playstation 3 has the cell chip which has power processors. IBM probably do not even care, the extra business Sony and Microsoft just gave them will keep PowerPC alive for a while yet. Dan