| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Apple announce OS X for Intel | |
|
||
| Time: 14:08 EST/19:08 GMT | News Source: ActiveWin.com | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Apple have just announced that Intel will be their platform of choice for OS X, it turns out that they have had OS X running on intel hardware for 5 years (no surprise) and it's a breeze for recompling stuff to. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 335 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:20:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #26 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/8/2005 2:48:18 PM |
|
"The discussion was precisely a PowerPC platform vs. x86 platform discussion"
It was? I thought it was Parker being an idiot claiming that Windows would run on the PowerPC. All I said was it was a win for IBM and the PowerPC in general. "those are performance-related attributes" No, they aren't. Heat dissipation is a performance issue? No, sorry, I disagree. "(and, of course, x86 had 64-bit offerings at that time)" Unfortunately, that's not what I said. I said forward-compatible 64-bit features. 64-bit instructions or not compatible with 32-bit instructions on x86. "How's it feel to be as wrong as rain?" Wrong about what? Tell me what I was wrong about? No one has pointed to anything that I was specifically WRONG about related to this subject. "apple just conceded the desktop market." How so? "They see some more profits in laptops, but thats only for a couple more years." What does that mean? Yes, Apple is ahead of the industry in selling laptops; yes, laptops are more significant to them than desktops, but where are the two years from? Another prediction. Shall we wager on whether or not Apple is still making either laptops or desktops or both in 2007? I'm happy to make that wager and prove that I am correct. Same as I have repeatedly offered the same wager to Parker but he is afraid to accept it. This post was edited by sodajerk on Wednesday, June 08, 2005 at 14:49. |
| #27 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/8/2005 8:24:15 PM |
|
Well, sodajerk, you certainly don't disappoint. :)
"those are performance-related attributes" No, they aren't. Heat dissipation is a performance issue? No, sorry, I disagree. This is just too funny. Please re-read: "and those are performance-related attributes... except for heat." And you say I have reading problems??? "(and, of course, x86 had 64-bit offerings at that time)" Unfortunately, that's not what I said. I said forward-compatible 64-bit features. 64-bit instructions or not compatible with 32-bit instructions on x86. But that's simply what I said--64-bit is an option on the x86 platform. I'm not really sure what you're driving at with forward-compatibility. Can you give an example where this would make a big difference? Apple should upgrade their OS to 64-bit in the process, anyhow, but they could certainly run it on x86-64. I'd be curious to know the number of Mac desktops that are shipping with 8 GBs of RAM at this point, as well. |
| #28 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/9/2005 5:58:28 PM |
|
Not one of those is a performance related issue so it doesn't matter what example I use.
If you don't understand that x32 binaries are compatible with 64-bit PPC chips but this is not so with x86, I guess you just won't understand. The point being the PowerPC a year ago still had a number of advantages that x86 did not have at the time. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 26 through 50 of 335 Prev | Last | Next |
The time now is
6:20:24 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
