| 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 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:05:53 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/6/2005 2:19:00 PM |
| montana, go ANYWHERE on the web besides this site. |
| #2 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 6/6/2005 2:26:23 PM |
|
I love it when I'm right :)
"Mac OS X has been "leading a secret double life" for the past five years, said Jobs. "So today for the first time, I can confirm the rumors that every release of Mac OS X has been compiled for PowerPC and Intel. This has been going on for the last five years." TL |
| #3 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 6/6/2005 2:27:27 PM |
|
#2, LOL! sites are pretty hammered right now. What I consider the best Mac wed site on the Internet (www.macintouch.com) has the official press release. macworld.com has some other tidbits as well. TL |
| #4 By 7760 (12.155.143.50) at 6/6/2005 3:02:42 PM |
|
While the fanboy geeks are all atwitter over this news, working administrators are more excited that WSUS is now final and available for download :)
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/updateservices/default.mspx |
| #5 By 40 (216.68.248.200) at 6/6/2005 3:14:52 PM |
|
Looks like Darwin (BSD based), will see the light of day as a real product.
OpenDarwin, and Darwin Project are going be busy with all the hits. This post was edited by johnnyq on Monday, June 06, 2005 at 15:15. |
| #6 By 32313 (208.163.38.55) at 6/6/2005 3:16:50 PM |
| montanagrizzly, 10.5 is code named Leopard. |
| #7 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/6/2005 3:29:43 PM |
|
Intel processors provide more performance per watt than PowerPC processors do, said Jobs. “When we look at future roadmaps, mid-2006 and beyond, we see PoweRPC gives us 15 units of performance per watt, but Intel’s roadmap gives us 70. And so this tells us what we have to do,” he explained.
Now all let's watch SodaJerk come up with some ridiculous explanation that will: 1) back Apple at all costs 2) explain how he was never wrong about Intel vs. PowerPC performance, and that he has never said anything contradictory to any of his previous statements 3) somehow figure out a way to bash Microsoft in the process ;) This post was edited by bluvg on Monday, June 06, 2005 at 15:43. |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/6/2005 4:48:21 PM |
|
bluvg, when have I ever made a statement about a chip that doesn't exist (mid-2006)? When have I ever made a statement about performance/heat? Never. Never.
If you had asked me, do you think that the Pentium M will have better performance per heat dissipation vs. the 970 in mid-2006, maybe you'd have "got me." |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/6/2005 6:08:18 PM |
|
Make that better performance/watt (or vs. heat) today. The architecture of the P-M isn't changing radically by 2006 except for dual-core models, which IBM was also planning on introducing.
I'm not really sure how Apple and its fans can take this other than to eat a boatload of crow, as they repeatedly gloated about the PPC architecture's "superior" processors (http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?ThreadIndex=25220&Group=2, post 28, for example). I, too, thought that IBM had a great chip offering, but now Apple can only hope that we somehow forgot about all their "world's fastest desktop computer" claims. Over the next few months, we'll again see no red faces as the Mac faithful retrench in "enemy" ground, just like they did when OS X came out. They would continually berate Windows and would not acknowledge the previous Mac OS's serious shortcomings until OS X arrived, but then declared the vast superiority of OS X--even though many of these improvements had already been a part of Windows for a long time. Except this time, there really won't be much to decide to gloat about, since they'll be using the same procs that Windows uses. Yet, will I be spared the continual, universally uninformed, inferiority-complex-driven "Apple rocks and Windoze blows!" comments from my Mac friends? I'm not betting on it. Incidentally, check out http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html for a recent Pentium M vs. D comparison. |
| #10 By 32132 (206.116.136.250) at 6/6/2005 6:08:57 PM |
|
This is all so bogus. A year from now Steve will announce that not enough developers have signed on ... and announce the end of Apple PC's.
This is just his way of putting off the obvious. Apple as a PC company is dead, dead, dead. |
| #11 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/6/2005 7:04:46 PM |
|
"they repeatedly gloated about the PPC architecture's "superior" processors (http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?ThreadIndex=25220&Group=2, post 28, for example). "
I didn't say anything about performance in that post; hell, I didn't even use the word performance. Some dumbass, who could that be?, was claiming that Windows would be on the PowerPC platform. I refuted that. You really do not know how to read, do you? "will I be spared the continual, universally uninformed, inferiority-complex-driven "Apple rocks and Windoze blows!" comments from my Mac friends?" I suspect you'll be hearing it from a lot of former Windows users too! This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 06, 2005 at 19:06. |
| #12 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 6/6/2005 7:36:16 PM |
|
Another vote of confidence for the PowerPC line. Microsoft has always been invited to use the superior processor line.
Oh, no, that wasn't talking about performance at all, was it. The superiority was referring instead to what, the box packaging? |
| #13 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/6/2005 7:44:04 PM |
|
64-bit forward compatibility, Altivec, at the time (over a year and a quarter ago) heat dissipation was for better on the PowerPC line, it was smaller (at the time)...
But, please, blugv, can we talk about something that I said in 2005? Or anything in the last 365 days at least? Or find a single article where I was discussing the strengths of PowerPC rather than just belittling Parker for his idiocy? This post was edited by sodajerk on Monday, June 06, 2005 at 19:49. |
| #14 By 32132 (206.116.136.250) at 6/6/2005 7:58:34 PM |
| Apple is dead. Deceased. Apple is an ex manufacturer of PC's. Apple is no more. |
| #15 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/6/2005 8:00:08 PM |
| Parker is dead. LinuxIsTheft is dead. Parkker is dead. Parkkker is dead. NotParker is Parker. |
| #16 By 32132 (206.116.136.250) at 6/6/2005 8:35:30 PM |
|
#21 :)
Don't you hate when it turns out I'm right. About everything. Ha ha ha. |
| #17 By 3339 (65.198.47.53) at 6/6/2005 8:47:36 PM |
| Parker, what have you been right about? Apple, according to you, went out of business 2 years ago, will leave the desktop market in 2005, 2006, and 2007... and of course, as per bluvg's citation, you believed Microsoft would have a version of Windows 2003 and/or Longhorn running on the 970 by now and the Power4 and Power5... Tell me one thing you've been right about, just one. |
| #18 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 6/6/2005 8:52:06 PM |
|
The discussion was precisely a PowerPC platform vs. x86 platform discussion, and those are performance-related attributes (and, of course, x86 had 64-bit offerings at that time), except for heat. The Athlon has decent heat characteristics, and the Pentium M has top-notch heat dissipation.
I'm waiting for #3... :D |
| #19 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 6/6/2005 8:52:57 PM |
| #21--LOL. At least we agree about something. :) |
| #20 By 32132 (206.116.136.250) at 6/6/2005 10:17:08 PM |
|
#23 I was right about The Virginia Tech "Supercomputer" being dismantled because the G5 did not support ECC memory.
I was right about the MSDE database engine being identical to the SQL 2000 database engine. And I am right about Apple leaving the PC business. They essentially announced it today. From this day forward, Apple no longer is in control of its own hardware destiny. And given a choice between a proprietary 2000$ Apple running a dual core P4 and a 799$ Dell running a dual core P4, the consumer will overwhelmingly choose Dell. Jobs knows this. He just gave up. |
| #21 By 2960 (68.101.39.180) at 6/7/2005 8:52:17 AM |
|
Ah, yes. Parker(Not) starts the "Apple Is Dead" bandwagon up again. TL This post was edited by TechLarry on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 at 08:52. |
| #22 By 32132 (206.116.136.250) at 6/7/2005 9:59:17 AM |
|
Yeah ... "Apple is Dead" is as unbelievable as "Apple will switch to x86".
|
| #23 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 6/7/2005 12:51:34 PM |
|
BULLSHITE on your #19 response jerk. How's it feel to be as wrong as rain? You cant even defend yourself with smoke and mirrors this time.
apple just conceded the desktop market. They see some more profits in laptops, but thats only for a couple more years. The reality is their earnings NEED the ipod to last forever... and it wont. |
| #24 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 6/7/2005 1:21:07 PM |
|
Take your souvenir screenshots now, before apple re-writes history...
http://www.apple.com/powermac/performance/ --- Leapard - changing its spots. LMAO. Only apple could be so corny. I think apple should just go to intel, license stardock... and be done with it. |
| #25 By 32132 (206.116.136.250) at 6/7/2005 10:32:56 PM |
|
Computers are a commodity item. No one makes money off of 26" CRT TV's or 17" LCD's anymore. Neither will anyone make (much) money off of a 399$ PC.
But they will be made. And bought by the 100's of millions. And a few cult members will buy Mac's and some gamers will buy 3000$ Alienware PC's. But businesses will buy the cheapest functional computer and throw it away after 3 or 4 years. No computer will ever be 10 times faster than the one that is 5 years old. Sure, in 2 or 3 years, you might get a quad core running at 3.6ghz instead of a 2.8ghz celeron. But for regular business applications, or surfing the net, the performance difference will be miniscule. And Jobs knows it. This post was edited by NotParker on Tuesday, June 07, 2005 at 22:33. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 328 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:05:53 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
