Another Vote For X On Intel
Cringely's <a href="http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020214.html" target="_blank">latest column</a> advocates doing this . Slashdot is <a href="http://slashdot.org/articles/02/02/17/133226.shtml?tid=107" target="_blank">currently discussing it</a>.
Comments
Id love it, id dump this bloated POS called windows* in minutes.
*Can some one explain to me what changes they made from NT4 that took win2k up to 13 billion lines of code? USB support, some better windows 98 compatibillity, and...?
WTF?
This is obviously a last resort measure, for when Motorola finally ruins it for Apple. If Apple released OS X for x86, they would have to convert to a software-only company, and then M$ would throw their entire weight into making sure Apple went belly up. And M$ would trample Apple.
So no matter how you look at it, OS X on x86 will never happen successfully.
What's funny is that the author of this article thinks that Mac users will still buy Macs even if OS X runs on Intel. What an idiot. Who the hell is going to buy a $3000 Powermac when you can buy a PC foir $1000 that's as fast or faster at most tasks? What an idiot.
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Junkyard Dawg ]</p>
Dont all of you already do just that?
<strong>Dont all of you already do just that?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, this is different.
Today, you pay the "premium" for the OS, the software.
Once all the software (OS and all) is available on a cheaper and more powerful box, why not go for it?
<strong>Get the power line up to snuff</strong><hr></blockquote>
Exactly my point. The PowerMac isn't so powerful, AltiVec aside.