Toasted...


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Toasted...

Posted By: Tasnu Arakun Date: 6/7/05 11:41 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Don't be so glum . . . (Forrest of B.org)

: If Apple had decided to support BOTH x86 AND PPC permanently, I would
: wholeheartedly support this move. As it is, they're basically telling
: their established PPC base "Go fuck yourself. Oh I'm sorry, here,
: have a cookie."
So would I. I have no faith in the x86 architecture, it should have been dead and buried a long time ago, nor do I like Intel which I consider just as bad as Micro$oft. The PPC holds lot of potential (which the new video game consoles should show) and it sad that IBM/Motorola have shown so little interest. IBM might be lagging behind, but what about Intel? How long since they promised the release of the 4 GHz P4?
Another thing: I hope Apple won't develop the same habbit as every other pc manufacturer out there of putting over-powered processors in their computers while knowing all the bottlenecks will make it impossible to use at its fullest potential. A Mac Mini at 1.2 or 1.4 GHz has all the power _I_ need at the moment. Will Apple try to pursuade its customers that they do not need the latest and most poerful processors?
Simply speaking I've been a Mac user for 15 years and I want my next Mac to be a PPC. I think applications will be released for the PPC for many years to come (very few projects these days use of architecture specific code), but i'm less optimistic as for how long Apple will be releasing new OS X versions. But who knows, they might continue developing for the PPC in case the x86-road proves to be just as bumpy.
As a CS student and (currently hobby) programmer I am tired of paying for endless upgrades to OS X. I know i'll be releasing my small projects as PPC-only binaries for some time to come. But i'm pretty certain, once i upgrade, all they will need is a recompile which means a click of the mouse and then wait for a few seconds.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Apple to use Intel? (OT) Steve Levinson 6/5/05 5:06 p.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Kyjel 6/5/05 5:24 p.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) D-M.A. 6/5/05 7:56 p.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Reiginko 6/5/05 8:46 p.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) D-M.A. 6/6/05 5:15 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Bob-B-Q 6/6/05 5:23 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Adam Ashwell 6/6/05 9:56 a.m.

From his own mouth - it's true! *NM* Steve Levinson 6/6/05 8:33 a.m.

bye apple - it was nice knowing you! *NM* D-M.A. 6/6/05 8:36 a.m.

Don't be so glum . . . Steve Levinson 6/6/05 9:03 a.m.

Re: Don't be so glum . . . D-M.A. 6/6/05 10:44 a.m.

Re: Don't be so glum . . . Forrest of B.org 6/6/05 11:04 a.m.

Re: Don't be so glum . . . Steve Levinson 6/6/05 11:46 a.m.

Re: Don't be so glum . . . Kanen Faud'r 6/6/05 12:58 p.m.

Re: Don't be so glum . . . Forrest of B.org 6/6/05 1:17 p.m.

Toasted... Tasnu Arakun 6/7/05 11:41 p.m.

I can see the ads now... Callie21V 6/6/05 5:10 p.m.

Re: I can see the ads now... Kyjel 6/6/05 5:49 p.m.

Best post I've read in a long time! :) *NM* Reiginko 6/7/05 2:16 a.m.

Re: I can see the ads now... Forrest of B.org 6/7/05 8:14 a.m.

Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lux Tyler 6/6/05 1:34 p.m.

Re: Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lu Purple Penguin 6/6/05 9:10 p.m.

Re: Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lu Kanen Faud'r 6/7/05 6:42 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Vid Boi 6/8/05 2:07 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Reiginko 6/8/05 5:44 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Johannes Gunnar 6/8/05 9:29 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Speaker-To-Animals 6/8/05 10:31 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Speaker-To-Animals 6/8/05 10:30 a.m.

Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT) Bob-B-Q 6/8/05 11:16 a.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: So would I. I have no faith in the x86 architecture, it should have been dead : and buried a long time ago, nor do I like Intel which I consider just as : bad as Micro$oft. The PPC holds lot of potential (which the new video game : consoles should show) and it sad that IBM/Motorola have shown so little : interest. IBM might be lagging behind, but what about Intel? How long : since they promised the release of the 4 GHz P4? : Another thing: I hope Apple won't develop the same habbit as every other pc : manufacturer out there of putting over-powered processors in their : computers while knowing all the bottlenecks will make it impossible to use : at its fullest potential. A Mac Mini at 1.2 or 1.4 GHz has all the power : _I_ need at the moment. Will Apple try to pursuade its customers that they : do not need the latest and most poerful processors? : Simply speaking I've been a Mac user for 15 years and I want my next Mac to : be a PPC. I think applications will be released for the PPC for many years : to come (very few projects these days use of architecture specific code), : but i'm less optimistic as for how long Apple will be releasing new OS X : versions. But who knows, they might continue developing for the PPC in : case the x86-road proves to be just as bumpy. : As a CS student and (currently hobby) programmer I am tired of paying for : endless upgrades to OS X. I know i'll be releasing my small projects as : PPC-only binaries for some time to come. But i'm pretty certain, once i : upgrade, all they will need is a recompile which means a click of the : mouse and then wait for a few seconds.

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Steve Levinson	6/5/05 5:06 p.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Kyjel	6/5/05 5:24 p.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	D-M.A.	6/5/05 7:56 p.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Reiginko	6/5/05 8:46 p.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	D-M.A.	6/6/05 5:15 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Bob-B-Q	6/6/05 5:23 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Adam Ashwell	6/6/05 9:56 a.m.
From his own mouth - it's true! NM	Steve Levinson	6/6/05 8:33 a.m.
bye apple - it was nice knowing you! NM	D-M.A.	6/6/05 8:36 a.m.
Don't be so glum . . .	Steve Levinson	6/6/05 9:03 a.m.
Re: Don't be so glum . . .	D-M.A.	6/6/05 10:44 a.m.
Re: Don't be so glum . . .	Forrest of B.org	6/6/05 11:04 a.m.
Re: Don't be so glum . . .	Steve Levinson	6/6/05 11:46 a.m.
Re: Don't be so glum . . .	Kanen Faud'r	6/6/05 12:58 p.m.
Re: Don't be so glum . . .	Forrest of B.org	6/6/05 1:17 p.m.
Toasted...	Tasnu Arakun	6/7/05 11:41 p.m.
I can see the ads now...	Callie21V	6/6/05 5:10 p.m.
Re: I can see the ads now...	Kyjel	6/6/05 5:49 p.m.
Best post I've read in a long time! :) NM	Reiginko	6/7/05 2:16 a.m.
Re: I can see the ads now...	Forrest of B.org	6/7/05 8:14 a.m.
Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lux	Tyler	6/6/05 1:34 p.m.
Re: Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lu	Purple Penguin	6/6/05 9:10 p.m.
Re: Tua consilia omnia nobis clariora sunt quam lu	Kanen Faud'r	6/7/05 6:42 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Vid Boi	6/8/05 2:07 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Reiginko	6/8/05 5:44 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Johannes Gunnar	6/8/05 9:29 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Speaker-To-Animals	6/8/05 10:31 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Speaker-To-Animals	6/8/05 10:30 a.m.
Re: Apple to use Intel? (OT)	Bob-B-Q	6/8/05 11:16 a.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : So would I. I have no faith in the x86 architecture, it should have been dead : and buried a long time ago, nor do I like Intel which I consider just as : bad as Micro$oft. The PPC holds lot of potential (which the new video game : consoles should show) and it sad that IBM/Motorola have shown so little : interest. IBM might be lagging behind, but what about Intel? How long : since they promised the release of the 4 GHz P4? : Another thing: I hope Apple won't develop the same habbit as every other pc : manufacturer out there of putting over-powered processors in their : computers while knowing all the bottlenecks will make it impossible to use : at its fullest potential. A Mac Mini at 1.2 or 1.4 GHz has all the power : _I_ need at the moment. Will Apple try to pursuade its customers that they : do not need the latest and most poerful processors? : Simply speaking I've been a Mac user for 15 years and I want my next Mac to : be a PPC. I think applications will be released for the PPC for many years : to come (very few projects these days use of architecture specific code), : but i'm less optimistic as for how long Apple will be releasing new OS X : versions. But who knows, they might continue developing for the PPC in : case the x86-road proves to be just as bumpy. : As a CS student and (currently hobby) programmer I am tired of paying for : endless upgrades to OS X. I know i'll be releasing my small projects as : PPC-only binaries for some time to come. But i'm pretty certain, once i : upgrade, all they will need is a recompile which means a click of the : mouse and then wait for a few seconds.
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: