that is funny, it does seem a number of people buy them just because they are
'cool' I hate mac interface so i hope the will run something other then
macOS
g
On Monday 06 June 2005 12:43, Andrew McNabb wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:37:39PM -0600, Michael L Torrie wrote:
> > Yes
> This is not only in the games market. The cell cpu was not
> designed solely for games. In fact, it was designed
> specifically with hdtv in mind--it has the exact number of
> ALUs necessary to process an hdtv stream. IOW, besides the
> PS3, they are gunning for the embedded market, set to
On Tuesday 07 June 2005 07:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I'm not stating that they will duplicate Sony's architecture, but rather
> that they will come up with some other architecture that can compete at
> Sony (and IBM)'s level. That is, only if Sony can drive up competition
> for Intel. At
> Maybe, but I predict that Sony's multi-billion dollar
> investment into cell architecture will be well protected with
> strong IP licensing. It is of itself an architecture, and to
> be compatible anything would have to match the architecture.
> To compete along the same lines would require
> When I do price comparisons what I look at is the hardware.
> Compare RAM, hard drive size, video card, etc. And that is
> when you notice the price difference. I have to say that
> Apple is coming down more lately, but you still get more bang
> for your buck with a PC. I could be wrong t
I'll be happy to do the fps comparison next time I reboot. My benchmark,
which is heavily influenced by RAM, is FlightGear. Utterly unusable in
OS X, works great in Linux. I don't know what that says for acceleration
other than acceleration is working in linux. I'm quite sure that the
performance d
Gabriel Gunderson wrote:
>On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 15:16 -0600, Eric Jensen wrote:
>
>
>>I make sure large hardware purchaces have return policies
>>
>>
>
>That's not "trying before you buy." It's "buying to try" with a plan to
>return it for any nitpicking reason. Extra returns drive up the
On Monday 06 June 2005 02:41 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> My prediction is competition will eventuall force Intel to develop
> technology that is similar or surpasses the cell as their core processor
> technology. I wouldn't worry too much about the cell outperforming
> Intel at the moment. Jus
Bryan Sant wrote:
I do own a mac, and I dual boot linux and OS X on it. It may be that I
don't have enough RAM, but there is a very noticeable difference in
responsiveness - Linux w/ XFree86 is tons faster than OS X.
Does xfree86 do the cool things os x does like transparency and whatnot?
No. D
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 15:16 -0600, Eric Jensen wrote:
> I make sure large hardware purchaces have return policies
That's not "trying before you buy." It's "buying to try" with a plan to
return it for any nitpicking reason. Extra returns drive up the cost
for everyone else.
Sure, don't hesitate
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I don't understand the misinformation that's out there that Mac is more
>expensive than a PC. Mac mini's are now in the same range as the
>cheaper-range Dells, and ibooks are some of the cheapest laptops out
>there, even compared to current Wintel laptops. If price is r
> My prediction is competition will eventuall force Intel to develop
> technology that is similar or surpasses the cell as their core processor
> technology. I wouldn't worry too much about the cell outperforming
> Intel at the moment. Just my opinion...
>
Sure intel could build a chip similar
> I do own a mac, and I dual boot linux and OS X on it. It may be that I
> don't have enough RAM, but there is a very noticeable difference in
> responsiveness - Linux w/ XFree86 is tons faster than OS X.
>
> Does xfree86 do the cool things os x does like transparency and whatnot?
> No. Does all t
Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> I find that sad that you hope that someone will do something illegal.
> If you want to tinker on a Mac, go grab a Mini. They are only $500.
I admit, I like try before you buy. I test drive my cars, I make sure
large hardware purchaces have return policies, and I'll
On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 at 14:42 -0600, Bryan Sant wrote:
> > I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Mac OS X has some real warts,
> > performance being one of them.
>
> Yikes, gasp, what! Honestly, I'm sounding like a Mac cheerleader :-(.
> I don't even own one. I run Linux on the desktop 100% of
> I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Mac OS X has some real warts,
> performance being one of them.
Yikes, gasp, what! Honestly, I'm sounding like a Mac cheerleader :-(.
I don't even own one. I run Linux on the desktop 100% of the time,
but there is NO COMPARISON of desktop performance betw
> The cell is not 'relatively weak' in that department. That
> is the exact department in which the cell is extraordinarily
> powerful. Each cell contains
> 8 APUs. Each APU is itself an independent 128bit vector
> processor (and each has a whopping 128 registers--compare
> that to the resou
On Monday 06 June 2005 01:55 pm, Mitch Anderson wrote:
> from my reading, its doubtful they would have used the cell anyway.
> (atleast not as the main processor in a future powerpc) altho it is
> possible to still use it as a graphics render/coprocessor as Jobs had in
> his NeXT days. My understa
> I don't think so. Consider that Dell (or PC vendor X) has to
> pay a Microsoft tax for each machine they sell. I don't
> expect Apple to be as cheap as Dell because I'm sure they'll
> use priemum components, but if all things were equal hardware
> wise, the Apple machine could actually cost
> I agree it would probably perform even better on cell architecture, but
> I don't know if I see Microsoft moving in that direction any time in the
> near future. I think business-wise, it makes more sense to put apple
> even more in the public eye by switching to Intel. Apple will compete
> bet
> Yes but Apple was never an OS or software company. They have always
> been a Hardware company. Do you honestly think they want to take on,
> and can take on, Dell+Wintel? I really don't think so. The moment
> Apple becomes just an OS/Software company is the moment they lose.
>
I don't think
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 13:49 -0600, Eric Jensen wrote:
> Why would you buy a Mac just re-install it with a different Linux OS
> when you can buy/build a standard PC for much cheaper and do the same?
> I don't find this Mac move very exciting if it is just more hardware
> options for my Suse worksta
Nicholas Leippe wrote:
On Monday 06 June 2005 12:28 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put it this way though - finally, one OS to rule them all that's not
Microsoft. Apple, who does it right, and sells PCs, not just the OS,
will finally use the Intel architecture the way it is supposed to be
use
I don't think they should stop doing their all-in-one package, but I
don't see how selling their OS in addition would hurt them in any way.
You don't? Why would someone purchase their hardware (besides people
who are willing to pay extra for style) when they could get something
ugly that is
Michael L Torrie wrote:
>The nice thing about the Intel Macs, though, is that you can now (well next
>year)
>go out and by a nice intel-based Mac and then run a much-more supported
>version of linux on it. Even the broadcom wireless on linux will work
>(as will the nvidia drivers) since I could
On 6/6/05, Eric Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't think they should stop doing their all-in-one package, but I
> don't see how selling their OS in addition would hurt them in any way.
The last paragraph of this article:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5733756.html
says:
However, Sc
Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> I highly doubt that Apple will separate their all-in-one package.
> This is what makes them who they are. All they are doing is changing
> processors, not business-models.
I don't think they should stop doing their all-in-one package, but I
don't see how selling th
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 13:26 -0600, Eric Jensen wrote:
> I've personally always wanted to try running Mac OS on my PC. You can
> build a PC so cheap now days yourself, so I can't justify spending so
> much money just to try out an OS. Separating their all-in-one package
> and moving to an Intel ar
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 15:18 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> People will run M$ on their Intel and see how the Mac performs so much
> better on the same chip and be able to see even more that M$ is an
> inferior product.
I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. Mac OS X has some real warts,
perform
I've personally always wanted to try running Mac OS on my PC. You can
build a PC so cheap now days yourself, so I can't justify spending so
much money just to try out an OS. Separating their all-in-one package
and moving to an Intel architecture would be a good move I think.
Maybe
more compan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Agreed - Mac has never been a just "hardware" company anyway. It has
>been the full package that has made them the money, not just the
>hardware. Not only is their hardware pretty and does it work well, but
>the software "just works", is one of the most beautiful UI's o
>I think the G5 kicks the P4's butt in power consumption, heat output and
>processing power. Pentium-M for laptops, though. that's another story.
Yes, definitely. Tom did a good writeup with the basic question, "Does the
P4 have any right to exist"? He hints at an incredible potential Intel
p
> Don't hyperventilate. :)
>
> Apple is still a hardware company. Just because their
> computers will use Intel chips doesn't mean they'll instantly
> become ugly. Apple Powerbooks will still be the shiniest
> laptops around, and most of their customers won't know
> anything happened.
Agree
> Hrm, debateable.
>
> However, it seems that Apple may be shooting themselves again
> considering that the cell processor is Power based--you'd
> think they'd want to take advantage of being closer to taking
> advantage of the new, extraordinary performance potential
> than any other architec
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Thomas Knight
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:36 PM
> To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
> Subject: Re: Hell has frozen over
>
> I just hope this will bring down the
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 12:25 -0600, Michael L Torrie wrote:
> It has been confirmed. The next version of the Apple PowerBook will
> triple boot Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X natively.
Here and I thought that based on the subject your message would be about
Sarge finally releasing. ;-)
What a day
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 12:37:39PM -0600, Michael L Torrie wrote:
> Yes but Apple was never an OS or software company. They have always
> been a Hardware company. Do you honestly think they want to take on,
> and can take on, Dell+Wintel? I really don't think so. The moment
> Apple becomes just
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 12:37 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > Well I'm being a bit facetious. But here you go:
> >
> > http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
>
> Doesn't say anything about dual-booting, or that Microsoft Window
> will even run on future Apple hardware.
Obvi
. that's another story.
Michael
>
> Jesse
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > Behalf Of Michael L Torrie
> > Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 2:26 PM
> > To: Provo Linux Users Group Mailing List
> &
Well I'm being a bit facetious. But here you go:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html
Doesn't say anything about dual-booting, or that Microsoft Window
will even run on future Apple hardware.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.===
I just hope this will bring down the price of apple hardware.
Thomas Knight
Host - TechRadioLive
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://techradiolive.com
Nicholas Leippe wrote:
On Monday 06 June 2005 12:28 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Put it this way though - finally, one OS to rule them all that's no
On Mon, 2005-06-06 at 12:27 -0600, Wade Preston Shearer wrote:
> > It has been confirmed. The next version of the Apple PowerBook will
> > triple boot Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X natively.
>
> What is your source on the triple-book Powerbook?
Well I'm being a bit facetious. But here you go:
> What is your source on the triple-book Powerbook?
>
I think he's referring to this:
http://www.macworld.com/news/2005/06/06/liveupdate/index.php
Jesse
.===.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mailing. |
| Don't Fear the Penguin. |
| IRC: #utah at irc.freenod
On Monday 06 June 2005 12:28 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Put it this way though - finally, one OS to rule them all that's not
> Microsoft. Apple, who does it right, and sells PCs, not just the OS,
> will finally use the Intel architecture the way it is supposed to be
> used! I, for one am exci
s Group Mailing List
> Subject: Hell has frozen over
>
> It has been confirmed. The next version of the Apple
> PowerBook will triple boot Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X natively.
>
> Well, I'm sure the hardware will be special and I hope they
> keep OpenFirmware instead of
It has been confirmed. The next version of the Apple PowerBook will
triple boot Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X natively.
What is your source on the triple-book Powerbook?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
.===.
| This has been a P.L.U.G. mai
It has been confirmed. The next version of the Apple PowerBook will
triple boot Linux, Windows XP and Mac OS X natively.
Well, I'm sure the hardware will be special and I hope they keep
OpenFirmware instead of using a crappy intel bios, but nevertheless,
PowerPC is dead. And honestly, I think th
47 matches
Mail list logo
