Do you really think MHZ is the only thing Buyers look at. If they could get a machine that does everything the Dell does but is simpler, easier to use, and needs less service would not compete regardless of MHZ?
Back in the early 1990s, NeXT used to be a hardware company making 68k boxes running NeXTStep.
Then it became a software company and ported NeXTStep to x86, but also to Sun's Sparc, HP's PA-RISC, Digital's Alpha (remember these?), not to mention having OpenStep which ran over other people's OSes (including Windows NT).
NeXT was really good at this being-a-software-company thing, not that it was putting them on the road to prosperity, luckily for them, there was a struggling but not doomed computer company which in 1996 was in desperate need for what NeXT had: a proven, high-quality, modern operating system.
Soon after the merger (an apparent acquisition of NeXT by Apple, and an effective takeover of Apple by NeXT as you know), Apple redefined itself as a hardware company, killing off the Mac clones (remember those?), and after having seeded some x86 versions of Rhapsody to developers, axed those as well.
Apple's OS was going to run on Apple platform machine wearing an Apple badge, and that was it. Still is.
Apple always kept x86 maintaining an in-house version of Rhapsody and later of MacOS X, and its gets a mention from now and then, so I don't see what's the fuss is all about.
They probably have an up-to-date version of MacOS X v.10.2 running on an multi-processing Sun machine, and perhaps on an HP PA-RISC box for good measure.
And with the ex-NeXTer's good experience of porting the OS to various CPUs, they're likely to have it running right now on an IBM POWER4 as well.
It's a good skill worthy of maintaining and they probably learn a lot from it, but it's unlikely they are considering porting MacOS X to Sparc or x86.
Apple has been mostly successful in recent years selling Macs with PowerPC CPUs, and has also been mostly successful in its ongoing transition from MacOS (7/8/9) to MacOS X , so we don't hear much of the oldie ?Apple is dead? litany today.
And life hasn't been smiling for most x86 box makers lately, when we come to think of it.
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>The only reason Apple will do this (and yes Marklar does exist with X running on a AMD box according to someone I've spoken to) would be if IBM and Moto fail to deliver for Apple. Apple would die quicker at 1.8ghz when AMD and Intel are at 4ghz +. So this would be a to survive option, running X on an AMD chip that would only boot X. Apple is hoping that X will save it regardless what platform it runs on. The advantages over Dell, HP, Gateway, etc would be Apple's box also runs X. So you'd have a dual boot of X and Windows. I'd buy that over a Dell if it came to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm just wondering why people take as a basic assumption that just because the CPU is x86, Apple would have to enable the machine to boot Windows.
<strong>Do you really think MHZ is the only thing Buyers look at. If they could get a machine that does everything the Dell does but is simpler, easier to use, and needs less service would not compete regardless of MHZ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are peecee lemmings we are taking about. They feed on whatever Intel shovels into their mouth. Ask AMD.
Comments
Then it became a software company and ported NeXTStep to x86, but also to Sun's Sparc, HP's PA-RISC, Digital's Alpha (remember these?), not to mention having OpenStep which ran over other people's OSes (including Windows NT).
NeXT was really good at this being-a-software-company thing, not that it was putting them on the road to prosperity, luckily for them, there was a struggling but not doomed computer company which in 1996 was in desperate need for what NeXT had: a proven, high-quality, modern operating system.
Soon after the merger (an apparent acquisition of NeXT by Apple, and an effective takeover of Apple by NeXT as you know), Apple redefined itself as a hardware company, killing off the Mac clones (remember those?), and after having seeded some x86 versions of Rhapsody to developers, axed those as well.
Apple's OS was going to run on Apple platform machine wearing an Apple badge, and that was it. Still is.
Apple always kept x86 maintaining an in-house version of Rhapsody and later of MacOS X, and its gets a mention from now and then, so I don't see what's the fuss is all about.
They probably have an up-to-date version of MacOS X v.10.2 running on an multi-processing Sun machine, and perhaps on an HP PA-RISC box for good measure.
And with the ex-NeXTer's good experience of porting the OS to various CPUs, they're likely to have it running right now on an IBM POWER4 as well.
It's a good skill worthy of maintaining and they probably learn a lot from it, but it's unlikely they are considering porting MacOS X to Sparc or x86.
Apple has been mostly successful in recent years selling Macs with PowerPC CPUs, and has also been mostly successful in its ongoing transition from MacOS (7/8/9) to MacOS X , so we don't hear much of the oldie ?Apple is dead? litany today.
And life hasn't been smiling for most x86 box makers lately, when we come to think of it.
[ 09-17-2002: Message edited by: Immanuel Goldstein ]</p>
<strong>The only reason Apple will do this (and yes Marklar does exist with X running on a AMD box according to someone I've spoken to) would be if IBM and Moto fail to deliver for Apple. Apple would die quicker at 1.8ghz when AMD and Intel are at 4ghz +. So this would be a to survive option, running X on an AMD chip that would only boot X. Apple is hoping that X will save it regardless what platform it runs on. The advantages over Dell, HP, Gateway, etc would be Apple's box also runs X. So you'd have a dual boot of X and Windows. I'd buy that over a Dell if it came to it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm just wondering why people take as a basic assumption that just because the CPU is x86, Apple would have to enable the machine to boot Windows.
<strong>Do you really think MHZ is the only thing Buyers look at. If they could get a machine that does everything the Dell does but is simpler, easier to use, and needs less service would not compete regardless of MHZ?</strong><hr></blockquote>
These are peecee lemmings we are taking about. They feed on whatever Intel shovels into their mouth. Ask AMD.
ifeq (i386,$(ARCH_SAYS))
BUILD_ARCH := i386-apple-macos10
else
ifeq (ppc,$(ARCH_SAYS))
BUILD_ARCH := powerpc-apple-macos10
Older source used to refer to it as Darwin-x86 or something similar. Maybe I'm reading too much into it?