wrldwzrd89 said:
Uhhh...getting crappy yields and not getting to 3GHz on schedule? <drum roll/cymbal splash>
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
A new spin on Mac OS X for Intel
- Thread starter wrldwzrd89
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Uhhh...getting crappy yields and not getting to 3GHz on schedule? <drum roll/cymbal splash>
As far as not reaching 3 GHz when expected is concerned, it isn't really IBM's fault - the blame lies on all the physical problems EVERYONE encountered when switching to the 90nm manufacturing process. The yield problems are partly due to the previously-mentioned 90nm difficulties and partly due to internal issues at IBM's manufacturing plants.oingoboingo said:
PPC-based Windows NT computers were not Macs, but they used they used PPC 604e processors, the same chips used by IBM RS/6000 and the PowerMac 8500/8600/9500/9600. Read and be wise.yellow said:
Actually, Apple did release computers based on CHRP. You might try starting your MacOS X computer in single-user mode to see if you have one.oingoboingo said:
I know the PPC vs Intel debate has been raging forever, but I still have to jump in and point out that a Macintosh with "Intel Inside" (or AMD for that matter) does not equate to Mac OS X running on any old PC from Dell, HP, whatever. That's my biggest beef with people that are against the x86 architecture for Mac. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I totally support Apple in killing the clone market. Let's face it, 5% (or whatever) is not a big enough market to share with anyone else in this day and age. I don't want them to support Mac OS X on other hardware. I absolutely want Apple to stay in the hardware business and continue making "insanely great" computers for the rest of us. The new iMac G5 is great. Not without flaws, but great nonetheless.
However, I think that Apple would get a lot more "bang for the buck" if they were to use AMD processors with HyperTransport, etc. on their own proprietary motherboards that they design to only work with their OS.
I also think there would also be a huge benefit in designing Virtual PC to run with "native" hardware underneath. You couldn't install Windows on a Macintosh, and you couldn't install OS X on a PC, but you could install Virtual PC on a Macintosh to run Windows at near native speeds. Apple could withold the secret sauce to prevent anyone from creating a Virtual Machine that would make a PC look like an x86-based Macintosh.
I totally support Apple in killing the clone market. Let's face it, 5% (or whatever) is not a big enough market to share with anyone else in this day and age. I don't want them to support Mac OS X on other hardware. I absolutely want Apple to stay in the hardware business and continue making "insanely great" computers for the rest of us. The new iMac G5 is great. Not without flaws, but great nonetheless.
However, I think that Apple would get a lot more "bang for the buck" if they were to use AMD processors with HyperTransport, etc. on their own proprietary motherboards that they design to only work with their OS.
I also think there would also be a huge benefit in designing Virtual PC to run with "native" hardware underneath. You couldn't install Windows on a Macintosh, and you couldn't install OS X on a PC, but you could install Virtual PC on a Macintosh to run Windows at near native speeds. Apple could withold the secret sauce to prevent anyone from creating a Virtual Machine that would make a PC look like an x86-based Macintosh.