I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:48 -0400, William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Yawn. Apple in their right mind would never allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It may have an Intel chip in it, but it's still not a PC.
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:03, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:48 -0400, William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Yawn. Apple in their right mind would never allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It may have an Intel chip in it, but it's still not a PC.
So how long will it take for someone to add Mac emulation to Xen, VMware, VirtualPC, etc. so OS X won't know its running on commodity hardware?
Yawn. Apple in their right mind would never allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It may have an Intel chip in it, but it's still not a PC.
So how long will it take for someone to add Mac emulation to Xen, VMware, VirtualPC, etc. so OS X won't know its running on commodity hardware?
Ah, a Xen-Linux-Mac OS XI, makes my mouth water [even if I have to buy special hardware for it]... (now if only it was possible to Xen'ize windows... but no microsoft won't let that cat out of the bag [the drivers were written])
Cheers, MaZe.
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:16 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:03, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:48 -0400, William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Yawn. Apple in their right mind would never allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It may have an Intel chip in it, but it's still not a PC.
So how long will it take for someone to add Mac emulation to Xen, VMware, VirtualPC, etc. so OS X won't know its running on commodity hardware?
Not very long I'd imagine. Look at PearPC as it is, and realize that they won't have to do processor emulation anymore.
William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Its been made clear that OSX will not run on commodity h/w and will be restricted to Apple h/w. There might be some form of a functionality that allows other x86 OS's to run ( Windows has been mentioned ) as a dual boot option.
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Users of Apple are mainly musicians, graphic designers and etc. Artists prefer to MAC OS. They will welcome to the switching, because Mac will get fast, and they won't use CentOS on Mac.
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 17:48 -0400, William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch.
My opinion is that this discussion doesn't belong on this list.... Try slashdot or something. This list is already full of off-topic discussions.
--jesse
William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Somebody I know (not Apple related) gave me this opinion.
Apple -> Intel could be because Apple has the IP to PPC and since IBM don't want to play, Apple will just find another manufacturer. Intel make sense because AMD does not have capacity.
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 11:32 +0800, Feizhou wrote:
Apple -> Intel could be because Apple has the IP to PPC and since IBM don't want to play, Apple will just find another manufacturer.
Other than Motorola, the options are limited.
Intel make sense because AMD does not have capacity.
AMD has capacity. They have a 30% share!
The problem is AMD doesn't have capital to give away in either discounts or marketing.
That's why Dell hasn't gone Opteron for servers.
Feizhou wrote:
William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Somebody I know (not Apple related) gave me this opinion.
Apple -> Intel could be because Apple has the IP to PPC and since IBM don't want to play, Apple will just find another manufacturer. Intel make sense because AMD does not have capacity.
Just AMD's existance is enough to ensure that Intel play ball. How long do you suppose it would take for Apple to play the AMD ball to get price discounts? If Apple runs on x86, then it would require very little work to get OSX happy on AMD as well, particularly the new ones that have SSE3 and dual core. With IBM apple knew they had no real barganing position, that is not the case with Intel.
Franki wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Somebody I know (not Apple related) gave me this opinion.
Apple -> Intel could be because Apple has the IP to PPC and since IBM don't want to play, Apple will just find another manufacturer. Intel make sense because AMD does not have capacity.
Just AMD's existance is enough to ensure that Intel play ball. How long do you suppose it would take for Apple to play the AMD ball to get price discounts? If Apple runs on x86, then it would require very little work to get OSX happy on AMD as well, particularly the new ones that have SSE3 and dual core. With IBM apple knew they had no real barganing position, that is not the case with Intel.
This conversation is pretty much off-topic here, I tried to make that point with my last post in a more subtle way ... didnt work :)
Please take it elsewhere,
Thanks,
- K
aw, I thought this was also a Centos community list?
Yes, but people are already discussing this on Slashdot and OSNEWS:
- http://games.slashdot.org/games/05/06/07/1936219.shtml?tid=10&tid=3 - http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/07/1420222.shtml?tid=166&tid=3&... - http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1752234.shtml?tid=118&tid=179&a... - http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1131250.shtml?tid=118&tid=181&a... - http://osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=10786 - http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10768 .. etc
I thing it's not much fruitful to discuss the affects of the move on CentOS, since MacOS is "viewed as" a "desktop operating system" while CentOS is "CentOS: The Community ENTerprise Operating System".
-- sukru
this move could directly affect Centos..hence why its inclusion on this list.
Sukru TIKVES wrote:
aw, I thought this was also a Centos community list?
Yes, but people are already discussing this on Slashdot and OSNEWS:
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/07/1420222.shtml?tid=166&tid=3&...
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1752234.shtml?tid=118&tid=179&a...
http://apple.slashdot.org/apple/05/06/06/1131250.shtml?tid=118&tid=181&a...
.. etc
I thing it's not much fruitful to discuss the affects of the move on CentOS, since MacOS is "viewed as" a "desktop operating system" while CentOS is "CentOS: The Community ENTerprise Operating System".
-- sukru
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
its high time that a off-topic list be added for people to discuss non-technical issues. those who are interested will subscribe to it.
Quoting Karanbir Singh Mail-Lists@karan.org:
Franki wrote:
Feizhou wrote:
William Warren wrote:
I am wondering what the list's opinion is on the Apple to Intel switch. This is going to put a slick desktop that runs on top of BSD directly into the mainstream. What does this hold for Linux in general, Linux on the desktop..and microsoft.
Somebody I know (not Apple related) gave me this opinion.
Apple -> Intel could be because Apple has the IP to PPC and since IBM don't want to play, Apple will just find another manufacturer. Intel make sense because AMD does not have capacity.
Just AMD's existance is enough to ensure that Intel play ball. How long do you suppose it would take for Apple to play the AMD ball to get price discounts? If Apple runs on x86, then it would require very little work to get OSX happy on AMD as well, particularly the new ones that have SSE3 and dual core. With IBM apple knew they had no real barganing position, that is not the case with Intel.
This conversation is pretty much off-topic here, I tried to make that point with my last post in a more subtle way ... didnt work :)
Please take it elsewhere,
Thanks,
- K
-- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ GnuPG Public Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
How about just sending *email* to the individual you're responding to if you must ramble on about something off topic. I know...I know....it's a radical concept.
On Wednesday 08 June 2005 08:17, Chris Mauritz wrote:
How about just sending *email* to the individual you're responding to if you must ramble on about something off topic. I know...I know....it's a radical concept.
It's easier to reply rather than reply-author. With the list set to reply-to the list, a simple reply goes to the list. While I don't like having to reply-all or reply-list every time I send a reply to a list that doesn't set reply-to, it does mean that blind reply goes to the poster; most lists on which I am subscribed that don't set reply-to have a better SNR.
But even then there are those that think the discussion MUST be public for ego reasons.
And I've simply replied to the list here so that everyone can see that yes, you can do something other than just reply; I know kmail/kontact does reply-to-author, and it's easily done.
On Wed, 2005-06-08 at 17:50 +0800, Franki wrote:
Just AMD's existance is enough to ensure that Intel play ball. How long do you suppose it would take for Apple to play the AMD ball to get price discounts?
Since I consider this really is largely a discussion about PC _servers_, I'm going to make this comment.
There's really no "leverage" Apple can make any more than Dell. Apple is going to be an Intel partner at the level of Dell, so they will already be getting substantial discounts. People don't realize that from a 1st tier OEM viewpoint, AMD is _no_cheaper_ than Intel -- especially when Intel funds so much OEM R&D and advertising.
Furthermore, AMD's new advantage is servers. It really says something when HP, who co-designed IA-64 as the replacement for PA-RISC (and not just x86), switches to Opteron and tells their Intel partner "we aren't going to do any more R&D on Itanium." Dell's current AMD flirting is far more about servers than anything remotely related to desktops.
Because people consider AMD today for performance and reliability -- especially on the server.
Now people say Apple and the MacOS X platform is a desktop platform. I beg to differ -- especially now that it's going to be on x86. And if they shed the Mach Microkernel, then it really might really change. Which begs the question if Apple would consider AMD.
If Apple runs on x86, then it would require very little work to get OSX happy on AMD as well, particularly the new ones that have SSE3 and dual core.
Dual-core is only on Opteron until the fall. In reality, from a server I/O aspect, dual-core is not that much of a boost.
But yes, dual-core on the Opteron (and Athlon64 this fall) has far less latency and reliability issues than Intel P4 or Xeon dual-core. Memory channels are still direct and the HyperTransport interconnect was designed to work glueless in or off-IC, no different. Intel can't just keep hacking on more and more hubs and assume no issues.
With IBM apple knew they had no real barganing position, that is not the case with Intel.
IBM is a foundary. Heck, I'm sure Sony and Microsoft are getting priority over their own Power product line. The ideal product for a foundary is al
-
Ajay -
Bryan J. Smith -
Chris Mauritz -
Feizhou -
Franki -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jesse -
Karanbir Singh -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell -
Maciej Żenczykowski -
Sukru TIKVES -
Takashi Nakamura -
William Warren