Apple 'will change chips' - Omni chief

Comments

• Reply 1 of 27

  jll Posts: 2,713member

  February 5, 2003 7:57AM

  You forgot one very important word at the end of that thread title: believes
• Reply 2 of 27

  chych Posts: 860member

  February 5, 2003 8:08AM

  Alright Captain Obvious
  
  
  
  I'm sure Apple will be sticking with the G4 for 20 more years
• Reply 3 of 27

  jll Posts: 2,713member

  February 5, 2003 8:42AM

  [quote]Originally posted by chych:
  
  <strong>Alright Captain Obvious
  
  
  
  I'm sure Apple will be sticking with the G4 for 20 more years </strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  I wouldn't call PPC970 a new chip architecture - it's still a PowerPC.
• Reply 4 of 27

  henriok Posts: 537member

  February 5, 2003 9:34AM

  Nothing new here.. He says almost exactly what Steve himself has said before. Apple like to have their doors open, change of plattform might happen in the future, and Mac OS X is their ticket to independence.
  
  
  
  It's all been said before.
• Reply 5 of 27

  programmer Posts: 3,458member

  February 5, 2003 10:26AM

  [quote]Originally posted by JLL:
  
  <strong>I wouldn't call PPC970 a new chip architecture - it's still a PowerPC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  PowerPC is the instruction set architecture, but that doesn't imply the same implementation architecture. The 970 is extremely different in the architecture of how it implements the same ISA as the G4.
• Reply 6 of 27

  rambo47 Posts: 91member

  February 5, 2003 10:40AM

  This guy has no more credibility than Ryan Meader at MOSR. Yeah, Steve Jobs called him specifically into his office in Cupertino and said, "Psst. Keep this under your hat. We're going to change chips and I want an important developer like you to be the first and only one I tell."
  
  
  
  This is the same bullsh!t rumor that's been going around for years. Mac-on-Intel, or Mac+AMD, whatever. Pure crap.
• Reply 7 of 27

  mac the fork Posts: 722member

  February 5, 2003 11:07AM

  'This film is' not 'that great!'
  
  
  
  The Macworld rehash infuses the quote with unintended meaning by way of decontextualising it and adding a sensational title. The original article, which I read yesterday or this morning, in no way led me to believe Ken Case had insider info.
• Reply 8 of 27

  kickaha Posts: 8,760member

  February 5, 2003 11:16AM

  Oh for god's sake.
  
  
  
  The original interview is at <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=2736"; target="_blank">OSNews</a>, and the FULL quote is:
  
  
  
  [quote]7. Do you think that Apple would make the big jump to AMD Opteron or to plain x86? Do you see something like this happening, does it make sense for Apple and maybe your business?
  
  
  
  Ken Case: As you may know, NeXT supported four CPU architecture families: Motorola 680x0s, Intel 80x86s, HP PA-RISCs, and Sun SPARCs. I'm sure that Apple is keeping their options open, and will introduce support for another CPU architecture when the time is right.
  
  
  
  For this to happen, of course, they need to wean people away from (the unportable) Mac OS 9. Since they've just introduced hardware which requires Mac OS X, I think they're one step closer to the point where they can make such a move without backlash from the wider Macintosh community. <hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  WHEN THE TIME IS RIGHT.
  
  
  
  Good god, MacWorld, way to tank your little remaining credibility by chopping up the quote to give your little spin on it. Jeez.
  
  
  
  [ 02-05-2003: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
• Reply 9 of 27

  nevyn Posts: 360member

  February 5, 2003 11:40AM

  I'd just add that 'chip architecture' can also apply to the other pieces - not necessarily just the CPU. There's a lot of rumbling that Apple will adopt something similar to RapidIO or HyperTransport...which would involve a lot of major changes to the motherboard. There's also rumblings that the GPU will become more 'targetable' as a unit to send work to -&gt; very different than where we are right now.
  
  
  
  This is all smoke. And far in the future smoke at that. (Note that he mentions getting away from Mac OS 9...still going to be a lot of Mac OS 9 around for awhile, Classic isn't dead - just boot-into-9.)
• Reply 10 of 27

  progmac Posts: 1,850member

  February 5, 2003 12:23PM

  safari is for entry-level surfers?? what does that even mean? i'm not a safari user, but i fail to understand how a particular browser is only for "advanced surfers"
• Reply 11 of 27

  telomar Posts: 1,804member

  February 5, 2003 4:14PM

  [quote]Originally posted by progmac:
  
  <strong>safari is for entry-level surfers?? what does that even mean? i'm not a safari user, but i fail to understand how a particular browser is only for "advanced surfers"</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  Safari is somewhat slim on preferences. It can be pretty annoying at times.
• Reply 12 of 27

  nebagakid Posts: 2,692member

  February 5, 2003 4:36PM

  Man, i was hoping to see what the Omni Chef said...snap! <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
• Reply 13 of 27

  amorph Posts: 7,112member

  February 5, 2003 4:40PM

  [quote]Originally posted by progmac:
  
  <strong>safari is for entry-level surfers?? what does that even mean? i'm not a safari user, but i fail to understand how a particular browser is only for "advanced surfers"</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  For one thing, Safari does not include, and will probably never include, the web authoring capabilities that OmniWeb has.
  
  
  
  Omni's home page is designed and uploaded in OmniWeb.
• Reply 14 of 27

  progmac Posts: 1,850member

  February 5, 2003 7:23PM

  [quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
  
  <strong>
  
  
  
  For one thing, Safari does not include, and will probably never include, the web authoring capabilities that OmniWeb has.
  
  
  
  Omni's home page is designed and uploaded in OmniWeb.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  well that sounds cool. i've never really been an OW user. i'll just have to check it out!
• Reply 15 of 27

  kickaha Posts: 8,760member

  February 5, 2003 8:07PM

  It's minimalist, but better than nothing.
  
  
  
  Basically it presents the HTML to you in a nicely formatted indent-form with syntax coloring, but not WYSIWYG. It also gives you basic error checking for the syntax as you type, ala spell check. Simple, but nice.
• Reply 16 of 27

  amorph Posts: 7,112member

  February 6, 2003 1:03AM

  [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:
  
  <strong>It's minimalist, but better than nothing.
  
  
  
  Basically it presents the HTML to you in a nicely formatted indent-form with syntax coloring, but not WYSIWYG. It also gives you basic error checking for the syntax as you type, ala spell check. Simple, but nice.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  
  
  
  And it has WebDAV support as well, so you can load a page, view source, make a change and save it.
  
  
  
  Minimalist is not always a bad thing.
• Reply 17 of 27

  zo Posts: 3,117member

  February 6, 2003 5:55AM

  it doesnt have friggen Tabs...
  
  
  
  chimera remains my browser of choice until safari improves in general and gives me tabs dammit.
• Reply 18 of 27

  rambo47 Posts: 91member

  February 6, 2003 7:45AM

  I've always enjoyed Chimera's speed, but I just don't get some folks' insistance on tabbed browsing. I've used it, and while neat it's no more convenient than having several windows open and cycling through them with Appple + ~. Unless, of course, your other hand is busy somewhere....
• Reply 19 of 27

  aquatic Posts: 5,602member

  February 6, 2003 1:31PM

  Because you can't see the titles of the windows.
• Reply 20 of 27

  ast3r3x Posts: 5,012member

  February 7, 2003 8:57AM

  tabs are so annoying, and i dont see the point. why would u want to have more then 3 windows open at a time?
  
  
  
  i normally have one, maybe 2, and RARELY 3