On Jun 9, 2005, at 7:21 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
John Baldwin wrote:
On Jun 8, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
As there is FreeBSD port to the PowerPC and its peripherals, this
machine will make a very interesting target for FreeBSD: combine
the x86 code base with the PowerPC driv
On Jun 9, 2005, at 11:35 AM, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, John Baldwin wrote:
The *really* hot machine is going to be the OSX ABI supported under
FreeBSD and running Aqua. I betcha this happens FAST.
I doubt it would be fast at all if it even happens. Unlike Linux,
svr4, and
John Baldwin wrote:
On Jun 8, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
As there is FreeBSD port to the PowerPC and its peripherals, this
machine will make a very interesting target for FreeBSD: combine the
x86 code base with the PowerPC drivers and get a real hot machine.
The *really* hot
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 12:57:11 -0700
Freddie Cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On June 9, 2005 12:43 pm, you wrote:
> > Freddie Cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > If they went with AMD processors, then they would have to either
> > > build or find someone to build a chipset.
>
> > FYI, AMD makes
Hi,
Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote:
"Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Or Mac OS X moves to use the FreeBSD kernel. It seems like I have heard
this before.
This simly isn't going to happen, and you are incredibly naïve to
Wasn't this the line I heard pretty often before Monday?
Appl
On June 9, 2005 12:43 pm, you wrote:
> Freddie Cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If they went with AMD processors, then they would have to either
> > build or find someone to build a chipset.
> FYI, AMD makes chipsets.
Yes, and some nices ones at that, especially on the server side (our new
d
"Jeremy C. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or Mac OS X moves to use the FreeBSD kernel. It seems like I have heard
> this before.
This simly isn't going to happen, and you are incredibly naïve to
except that it would. It's like expecting Microsoft to switch to the
OpenBSD kernel now that they
Freddie Cash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If they went with AMD processors, then they would have to either
> build or find someone to build a chipset.
FYI, AMD makes chipsets.
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
freebsd-chat@freebsd.or
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005, John Baldwin wrote:
> > The *really* hot machine is going to be the OSX ABI supported under
> > FreeBSD and running Aqua. I betcha this happens FAST.
>
> I doubt it would be fast at all if it even happens. Unlike Linux,
> svr4, and ibcs2, OS X is not just a POSIXish UNIX kern
On June 8, 2005 02:24 pm, Nicole wrote:
> On 07-Jun-05 My Homeland Security "observers" reported that Erich
> Dollansky said:
> > Claus Guttesen wrote:
> >> on the ongoing work with FreeBSD. As most know by now Apple will base
> >> it's next-generation hardware on the x86-architecture moving away
>
On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 07:27:48 -0700
John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The *really* hot machine is going to be the OSX ABI supported under
> > FreeBSD and running Aqua. I betcha this happens FAST.
>
> I doubt it would be fast at all if it even happens. Unlike Linux,
> svr4, and ibcs2,
On Jun 8, 2005, at 10:30 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
As there is FreeBSD port to the PowerPC and its peripherals, this
machine will make a very interesting target for FreeBSD: combine the
x86 code base with the PowerPC drivers and get a real hot machine.
The *really* hot machine is going to be
As there is FreeBSD port to the PowerPC and its peripherals, this
machine will make a very interesting target for FreeBSD: combine the
x86 code base with the PowerPC drivers and get a real hot machine.
The *really* hot machine is going to be the OSX ABI supported under
FreeBSD and running Aq
Hi,
Nicole wrote:
On 07-Jun-05 My Homeland Security "observers" reported that Erich Dollansky
said:
Yeah, Homeland Security.
This gives NSA a lot of e-mails to scan.
Claus Guttesen wrote:
It seems a shame that they could not have at least gone with AMD processors
instead of Intel. No mat
David Kelly wrote:
No, "Apple SC Setup" would not do a non-Apple SCSI drive. This
might have changed with MacOS 9. MacOS X has never complained
about any IDE HD I have tried.
I never had a problem and was using either System 6 or System 7
(Never could justify shelling out for an OS
David Kelly wrote:
Adaptec doesn't have the worlds best reputation for allowing people
to write drivers (or even for writing non-buggy firmware) but I seem
to recall that the Macs that ship with SCSI support use an Adaptec
chipset... oh, on looking, it appears that the IIci uses an NCR
S
On 07-Jun-05 My Homeland Security "observers" reported that Erich Dollansky
said:
> 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?
>
>> on the ongoing work with FreeBSD. As most know by now
On Jun 7, 2005, at 10:09 PM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
Adaptec doesn't have the worlds best reputation for allowing people
to write drivers (or even for writing non-buggy firmware) but I
seem to recall that the Macs that ship with SCSI support use an
Adaptec chipset... oh, on looking, it appear
On Jun 8, 2005, at 1:06 AM, Stephen Hurd wrote:
David Kelly wrote:
No, "Apple SC Setup" would not do a non-Apple SCSI drive. This
might have changed with MacOS 9. MacOS X has never complained
about any IDE HD I have tried.
I never had a problem and was using either System 6 or Syste
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
compile is effortless
since Mac has been secretly working this for 5 years.
shawn
- Original Message -
From: "Duo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: Re: apple moving to x86
David Kelly wrote:
No, that is NOT Apple's plan. Ap
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
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?
>
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?
on the ongoing work with FreeBSD. As most know by now Apple will base
it's next-generation hardware on the x86-architecture moving away from
the PowerPC.
38 matches
Mail list logo
