[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Apple apparently has not turned into the company you wanted it to be.
True. I expected Apple to be on the high-road for both hardware and
software. I don't feel we're there or even going there, now.
Amen!
5 years ago... just before OS X 10.0 shipped... I was still meandering
around, bumping into door frames, wondering what Jobs was smoking.
Unix is the OS I fooled around with in HS and learned to write drivers
for in college. Unix is the OS that my Systems prof often used as an
example of how how not to do things. Roll forward 20 years ... and
suddenly the merge with the beautiful BeOS is history and we're in bed
not just with Unix, but a kludged Unix...
Yes, BeOS would have been the much better choice to go with for the new
Mac OS, but once again Jobs had his way and this OS X is what we have.
Not that I don't like X, I do. But when I think what COULD have
been....... I still have BeOS 5 Pro on two machines, a Mac and a "PC",
as well as owning a Bebox. BeOS was way ahead of it's time. Fast,
revolutionary, and mutimedia-friendly way before Apple and Micro$haft.
But instead of becoming a great new Mac OS, Be gets bought by Palm and
BeOS gets shelved to likely never see daylight again. What a
shame............
On the hardware side, I figured the PowerPC was a nice chip to use for
a few more years, and that Apple would eventually move on to the next
big thing. A full POWER processor, for example. Or a Cell. Or maybe
even AMD *shudder*... But Apple didn't. They selected Intel's
band-aid x86. That definately ain't the high road.
Again, I'm with you. OS X could have been so much better with the Power
chip, if Jobs had let it, and would have had a much longer life as the
heart of the Macintosh. But for whatever reason Apple crippled it.
(Maybe that was part of the plan all along? Nah..) If Apple really HAD
to go x86, I agree that AMD would have been a better choice. To me, they
have always been better at the game than Intel (first with 64 bit for
example), and much better priced processors too. Of course they don't
have the deep pockets that Intel has, which I think is really why Jobs
went with them instead. I can already hear it; "But Intel has more
manufacturing capacity than AMD!" So? I believe that if Jobs really
wanted a deal with AMD, they would have been more than willing to ramp
up production to meet the demand. So obviously there was more to this
than simply capacity, and I think it was Intel's bucks. Then again, I've
always looked at Intel as the Micro$oft of the processor world, wanting
to be the "numero uno" chip maker no matter what, just like M$ has done
in the OS world. And roping Apple in is just another step down that
road.................
JR
--
This sig contains no political, religious, or commercial content whatsoever.
--
G-List is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and...
Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives |
-- We have Apple Refurbished Monitors in stock! | & CDRWs on Sale! |
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
G-List list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml>
--> AOL users, remove "mailto:";
Send list messages to: <mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-list%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
iPod Accessories for Less
at 1-800-iPOD.COM
Fast Delivery, Low Price, Good Deal
www.1800ipod.com
