Wow, you guys amaze me. Ruiz gives the lamest keynote in history filled with marketing non-speak like the above, doesn't even mention the Mac in any conceivable context and you still want to believe it's all some secret plan with Apple. Give it up. Now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh you didn't know? The tech industry revolves around Apple. Everything is about Apple.
1) using AMD's 64 bit chip ONLY for server-related products like X-Serve and some brand new server
2) using IBM's PPC 970 for PowerMac and PowerBook
3) using Moto's PPC for iBook, iMac, eMac
There aren't many apps but enterprise-related apps for MacOS X server anyway......so moving the server line to AMD chip with MacOS X Server x86 won't hurt
[quote]However, once SJ dies and stops getting those insane bonuses, the cash burn rate will slow signifcantly...<hr></blockquote>
...CASH BURN RATE will slow significantly? WTF are you talking about? Apple doesn't have any burn rate, it has a friggin accumulation rate. They have 4.34b in the bank, up from the 1.43b they had in the bank when Job's took over in 1997.
AND, Job's doesn't get paid in CASH!!! Its a freaking option. And the strike price hasn't even been close to getting met in well over 2 years. IIRC, the strike price on his options is $43/share, which makes it worth ****le right now.
It merely dilutes the value to stockholders, not the cash flow. So, if anything, they pay Jobs the best way for the company's future. His income is entirely related to how well the company does.
Man, I swear, sometimes I get tired of freaking whiney mac users. It ain't a religion its a computer. If it doesn't do the job for you, get one that does.
Ensign: I agree. Apple is a good company, but could be a great company. It just simply refuses to pursue that path. Apple will just keep shooting itself in the foot until its $4 billion is frittered away to nothing about 137.2 years from now. However, once SJ dies and stops getting those insane bonuses, the cash burn rate will slow significantly.... <hr></blockquote>
<strong>How well did NeXT run on x86 or was that what processor it was designed for?</strong><hr></blockquote>
NeXt first ran on the Mot 680x0 chips. Then they went cross platform to x86, and a couple of others (hppa and sparc I think). Apple brought it over to ppc.
Darwin/x86 won't run well until a lot more work is put into optimizations - people still complain about 10.2 after what, 3 years of optimizations for ppc? Switching is NOT a magic bullet.
Well we can't know exactly how OS X would perform on various x86 systems. There would have to be a blind "bake off" test done by unbiased individuals to see if x86 cpus running OS X are indded faster than PPC based macs ( I really care about the numbers, I'm concerned with real world performance).
"the time is fast arriving when we will see the PC as the central hub of the home." Reuters ruined it, however, by tacking on: "a scenario that software giant Microsoft Corp. is hoping to achieve." Everyone is a digital hub visionary these days.
Darwin is build for gcc and gcc is vastly more optimized for the x86 platform than PPC. Optimizing Darwin for x86 won't be an issue.. bringing the complete OSX to x86 is much more than Darwin. Quartz and Carbon have never run on x86 AFAIK.
<strong>Optimizing Darwin for x86 won't be an issue..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Darwin/x86 built by GCC exists publicly today.
Darwin/ppc build by GCC exists publicly today.
If you hang out in the Darwin/x86 mailing lists, you'll hear a cacophony of people going "Jeez, this is DOG slow". GCC doesn't automagically remove a brute force 'dumb-but-works' algorithm for XYZ with a nifty 10x faster 'smart-but-tricky' algorithm. (I can't give you my personal experience, none of my x86 boxen are more than 50% supported by the available drivers).
So, either 1) there is a LOT of optimization necessary in Darwin/x86 before Apple could even think of switching, or 2) Apple could have a completely optimized 'Marklar ready' Darwin/x86 hidden inside an infinite loop somewhere.
Personally, I can see a couple of secret Darwin/x86 drivers for various hardware speeding things up some, say double the current speed. But I think if we switched TODAY to dual P4 3GHz machines the screaming about performance problems would make the screaming about 10.0, & 10.1's speed look like sycophantic gushing praise. After a year or two of hard work, it might be a different story, but there is NO WAY the comment 'Optimizing Darwin for x86 won't be an issue' is anywhere near truth. Either they've spent a chunk of time working on this in secret - or there's a large chunk left to do, your choice.
Comments
<strong>
Wow, you guys amaze me. Ruiz gives the lamest keynote in history filled with marketing non-speak like the above, doesn't even mention the Mac in any conceivable context and you still want to believe it's all some secret plan with Apple. Give it up. Now.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh you didn't know? The tech industry revolves around Apple. Everything is about Apple.
1) using AMD's 64 bit chip ONLY for server-related products like X-Serve and some brand new server
2) using IBM's PPC 970 for PowerMac and PowerBook
3) using Moto's PPC for iBook, iMac, eMac
There aren't many apps but enterprise-related apps for MacOS X server anyway......so moving the server line to AMD chip with MacOS X Server x86 won't hurt
????????
[ 11-19-2002: Message edited by: Leonis ]</p>
...CASH BURN RATE will slow significantly? WTF are you talking about? Apple doesn't have any burn rate, it has a friggin accumulation rate. They have 4.34b in the bank, up from the 1.43b they had in the bank when Job's took over in 1997.
AND, Job's doesn't get paid in CASH!!! Its a freaking option. And the strike price hasn't even been close to getting met in well over 2 years. IIRC, the strike price on his options is $43/share, which makes it worth ****le right now.
It merely dilutes the value to stockholders, not the cash flow. So, if anything, they pay Jobs the best way for the company's future. His income is entirely related to how well the company does.
Man, I swear, sometimes I get tired of freaking whiney mac users. It ain't a religion its a computer. If it doesn't do the job for you, get one that does.
[ 11-19-2002: Message edited by: mooseman ]
[ 11-19-2002: Message edited by: mooseman ]</p>
<strong>Like noted a few times, supposedly it's been rescheduled.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Tomorrow! tomorrow!
I love you, tomorrow!
You're always a day awaaaaaaaay!
im afraid that motorola is still in the mix!
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
Ensign: I agree. Apple is a good company, but could be a great company. It just simply refuses to pursue that path. Apple will just keep shooting itself in the foot until its $4 billion is frittered away to nothing about 137.2 years from now. However, once SJ dies and stops getting those insane bonuses, the cash burn rate will slow significantly.... <hr></blockquote>
Er.....you really don't know shit do you?
<strong>How well did NeXT run on x86 or was that what processor it was designed for?</strong><hr></blockquote>
NeXt first ran on the Mot 680x0 chips. Then they went cross platform to x86, and a couple of others (hppa and sparc I think). Apple brought it over to ppc.
Darwin/x86 won't run well until a lot more work is put into optimizations - people still complain about 10.2 after what, 3 years of optimizations for ppc? Switching is NOT a magic bullet.
<strong>just look a little further back for the details on this one
Amd has the rights to produce PPC chips</strong><hr></blockquote>
Source? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
"the time is fast arriving when we will see the PC as the central hub of the home." Reuters ruined it, however, by tacking on: "a scenario that software giant Microsoft Corp. is hoping to achieve." Everyone is a digital hub visionary these days.
<strong>Optimizing Darwin for x86 won't be an issue..</strong><hr></blockquote>
Darwin/x86 built by GCC exists publicly today.
Darwin/ppc build by GCC exists publicly today.
If you hang out in the Darwin/x86 mailing lists, you'll hear a cacophony of people going "Jeez, this is DOG slow". GCC doesn't automagically remove a brute force 'dumb-but-works' algorithm for XYZ with a nifty 10x faster 'smart-but-tricky' algorithm. (I can't give you my personal experience, none of my x86 boxen are more than 50% supported by the available drivers).
So, either 1) there is a LOT of optimization necessary in Darwin/x86 before Apple could even think of switching, or 2) Apple could have a completely optimized 'Marklar ready' Darwin/x86 hidden inside an infinite loop somewhere.
Personally, I can see a couple of secret Darwin/x86 drivers for various hardware speeding things up some, say double the current speed. But I think if we switched TODAY to dual P4 3GHz machines the screaming about performance problems would make the screaming about 10.0, & 10.1's speed look like sycophantic gushing praise. After a year or two of hard work, it might be a different story, but there is NO WAY the comment 'Optimizing Darwin for x86 won't be an issue' is anywhere near truth. Either they've spent a chunk of time working on this in secret - or there's a large chunk left to do, your choice.
<strong>
Tomorrow! tomorrow!
I love you, tomorrow!
You're always a day awaaaaaaaay!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
...and I've got the roadmap and I swear that the G5 is just over this next hill...