Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob Kim who wrote (137015)	6/8/2001 10:08:04 AM
From: Dave Budde	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Bob, re: "I think Apple should reconsider using the x86" This is a much different issue than porting its environment to the x86 platform. If Apple changed its processor but still maintained its proprietary environment that is one thing. And that is in fact what they did when they moved from 68K to PPC (successfully, by the way). But I was responding to porting its environment to the x86 system platform, so that other manufacturers could support Apple's OS. This would be a mistake for Apple. Oh and by the way, Apple using the x86 presupposes that they think it is a better processor. Now, I am certain there are two camps inside Apple, but every time Apple introduces a new high-end machine, they do a bake off against the best Wintel machine available and come out on top every time. So I don't know if Apple believes they are behind in performance.

To: Bob Kim who wrote (137015)	6/8/2001 1:01:52 PM
From: tcmay	Respond to of 186894

Mac OS running on x86 (or even IA 64) "I think Apple should reconsider using the x86. Even back in 1994, I heard that Apple/Novell had the MacOS running on x86 in nearly indistinguishable fashion from the Motorola chips. I wonder if Motorola even uses many Macs these days." "Also back in 1994 I remember seeing Macs paired with 29K-powered laser printers on the desks of secretaries in the executive area of AMD. " People and companies are wise to use the best tools for the job, factoring in as an issue the "PR effect" of course of using a competitor's chips. Motorola, for example, no doubt has long had many Wintel machines. (They even made an x86 machine at one time, as I recall.) When you saw those Macs at AMD that was during the period when Macs were still the best (even the "only") game in town for generating professional-looking documents: PageMaker, Quark, etc. Though there were alternatives for the DOS world--and Paul Engel used them when he was at Altera to generate professional-looking documents--the bulk of the page layout tools were on Macs. On the other issue, that of porting the Mac OS to x86, this has long been a topic of discussion at Apple. Supposedly several such ports have been done, in the lab, for various incarnations of Copeland, Rhapsody, etc. The "Darwin" core of OS X is already released for x86. The surrounding parts, like "Aqua," have not been. Tools for BSD on x86 are available. The real issue is the one Dave Budde raised: Will Apple "open up" the Mac OS and separate it from hardware in the way the Wintel world has gone? Doubtful. For lots of reasons. Keeping control of the hardware lessens the incompatibility problems that can plague open boxes. And most Mac customers are not, at least not currently, interested in "rolling their own" by buying fans and power supplies and sheet metal boxes. Nor are they much interested in having a screwdriver shop assemble a box for them. There are advantage and disadvantages to the "open standard" approach (cf. the usual "Cathedral and the Bazaar" discussions). (As for _prices_ of Macs, you folks ought to look at the pricing on the new iBook: it's cheaper than the most comparable Dell laptop.) --Tim May