David Kelly wrote:
On Jun 7, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
David Kelly wrote:
Think possibly I didn't speak clearly enough. Apple is not
*adding* commodity-ness to their product line. Thinking about it
I'd bet part of the deal with Intel is a special crypto block or
similar
On Jun 7, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
David Kelly wrote:
Think possibly I didn't speak clearly enough. Apple is not
*adding* commodity-ness to their product line. Thinking about it
I'd bet part of the deal with Intel is a special crypto block or
similar in the CPU uniquely
On Jun 7, 2005, at 10:29 PM, Duo wrote:
Mac-only monitor? One only has to look back a little bit for the
"17 inch Apple Studio LCD". Has an Apple-only digital video
interface. Is damn cool. One cable has everything including
power, USB, and a couple of control switches which are appare
Stephen Hurd wrote:
David Kelly wrote:
Currently the same thing holds true for internal CD/DVD drives. But
put the same non-Apple drive on Firewire and MacOS is happy with it.
You must be dealing with an older "originally" than I. I've replaced
the 40MB HD in an SE/30 with a 700-oddMB
David Kelly wrote:
On Jun 7, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Duo wrote:
David Kelly wrote:
No, that is NOT Apple's plan. Apple's plan is to use Intel CPUs. It
has
nothing to do with "make the mac x86 compliant" or to use commodity PC
hardware.
Uhm, for the last several years, they have been using a
David Kelly wrote:
Think possibly I didn't speak clearly enough. Apple is not *adding*
commodity-ness to their product line. Thinking about it I'd bet part
of the deal with Intel is a special crypto block or similar in the
CPU uniquely identifying it as an Apple Blessed CPU. Apple does this
On this, I do agree. I think Mac hardware lives up to a better standard
of quality than most x86 machines, BUT, I would also surmise, as
Microsoft consistantly has sold products to people who knew they were
flawed, that this is a 50/50 proposition. At best.
Have you used the new stock Apple ke
On Jun 7, 2005, at 6:28 PM, Duo wrote:
David Kelly wrote:
No, that is NOT Apple's plan. Apple's plan is to use Intel CPUs.
It has
nothing to do with "make the mac x86 compliant" or to use
commodity PC
hardware.
Uhm, for the last several years, they have been using alot more
"commodity"
Hi,
Lowell Gilbert wrote:
David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:03:03PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
Jared <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I think Apple will cause the PC market to clean up their act. To make
hardware that actually does what it says it will do. So
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 07:48:13PM -0400, James Bowman Sineath, III wrote:
> necessary boots into some virtual environment. But Mathmatica was
> recompiled in XCode in 2 hours!
Note that this factoid is possibly a cheat, since Mathematica
*already* runs on x86 in several OSes, and is *already* po
I forwarded this discussion to a friend of mine that is an Apple fanatic.
Thought his response was interesting:
Bow,
I watched the Keynote address on Apple's transition to Intel.
Apple has actually been running OS 10 on Intel for 5 years (just in
case they wanted to make the switch). The main r
David Kelly wrote:
No, that is NOT Apple's plan. Apple's plan is to use Intel CPUs. It has
nothing to do with "make the mac x86 compliant" or to use commodity PC
hardware.
Uhm, for the last several years, they have been using alot more
"commodity" hardware, from AGP Video cards, etc. I canno
At 01:40 PM 6/7/2005, Miguel Mendez wrote:
>How so? Apple is a niche market. I find their switch to x86 pretty
>depressing actually, although I understand their reasons.
Who says it'll be a total switch? I could easily imagine Apple
switching to x86 for its lower end products (or even selling Ma
Did you guys already unmount your filesystem?
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:48:26 +0200, Oliver Fromme <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Yuval Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Oliver Fromme wrote:
> > I do look carefully every day, because it's my job. I work
> > with various operating systems every
On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 12:53:03 -0500
David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's their plan. It was in the business section of my morning paper
> > today.
>
> No, that is NOT Apple's plan. Apple's plan is to use Intel CPUs. It has
> nothing to do with "make the mac x86 compliant" or to use
David Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:03:03PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> > Jared <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > I have heard rumors of this, I hope they do, at least make the mac x86
> > > compliant.
> >
> > That's their plan. It was in the business sec
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 12:03:03PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> Jared <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have heard rumors of this, I hope they do, at least make the mac x86
> > compliant.
>
> That's their plan. It was in the business section of my morning paper
> today.
No, that is NOT Ap
Jared <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I have heard rumors of this, I hope they do, at least make the mac x86
> compliant.
That's their plan. It was in the business section of my morning paper
today.
It's pretty much a question of being able to get enough chips; IBM had
really struggled on deliv
I have heard rumors of this, I hope they do, at least make the mac x86
compliant.
On 6/6/05, Erich Dollansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Claus Guttesen wrote:
> > Hi.
> >
> > I know this is a bit off-topic but it will probably have some impact
>
> Isn't chat the better list for this?
>
I'm sure you could get something nice and gui for they guy, point and
click admin access, you may even be able to cook up something
yourself, simple cgi scripts would do the job.
On 6/6/05, Kevin Kinsey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce A. Mah wrote:
>
> >If memory serves me right, Kevin Kinsey
20 matches
Mail list logo
