[Ti] like hell freezing over ?

[Henry Kalir]

Chris Olson wrote:

> On Jun 4, 2005, at 11:34 PM, Henry Kalir wrote:
>
>> IF it's true - it's all for the best, and long overdue!
>
>
> For the best, and long overdue?  x86 is a dead architecture.  The one 
> and only reason it still exists is because of a lumbering giant called 
> Microsoft that isn't light-footed enough to migrate millions of users 
> and applications to anything else.  Otherwise it would've been dead 
> long ago.
>
> x86-64, while not a true 64-bit architecture like the PowerPC 970, at 
> least has 64-bit extensions piled on top of the x86 instruction set 
> with the caveat that once you enable 64-bit pointers everything; 
> drivers and apps, must be 64-bit.  To run 32-bit code on AMD64 with 
> the 64-bit pointers enabled you need 32-bit emulation libraries either 
> supplied by the operating system or the application.  But Intel hasn't 
> embraced x86-64 - that's AMD's baby.  The only thing Intel has that 
> even comes close is IA64 Itanium (otherwise known as Itanic due to its 
> dismal failure in the marketplace).
>
> PowerPC is 64-bit from the ground up, with a 32-bit subset.  This 
> includes the G4 (Motorola 74xx) with a 64-bit ALU which will 
> accomplish 64-bit floating point arithmetic in one clock cycle.  Mac 
> OS X Tiger, while not a full 64-bit operating system, since most of 
> the interface uses 32-bit code, is able to use 64-bit code for 
> applications that require a 64-bit address space.  The Mac and OS X, 
> with the PowerPC processor, is the _one_and_only_ operating system and 
> platform in existence able to run natively on both 32-bit and 64-bit 
> architectures with only one version of the operating system.
>
> And now the rumor mill thinks Apple is going to step backwards into 
> the 80's and port to x86 with CISC code?
>
> For anybody who really thinks Apple will use Intel x86 processors to 
> run OS X, I have some prime Lunar real estate on the dark side of the 
> moon I would like to sell, and you can call me to make an immediate 
> purchase.
> -- 
> Chris

Chris...

Just like the fantasy of selling iPods to the PC crowd...a "small and 
insignificant minority of 90%"? Or porting iTunes to the PC platform?

I don't know why you get all riled up - I think that the wider the 
audience for the Mac OS - the BETTER it would be for all.

Is the current Mac that superior? Are there NO bugs in Tiger or in the 
hardware of the G5? Even Marconi himself (who got upset at me a few yrs 
ago for what he perceived to be heretic thoughts in questioning the 
perfection of the Mac) is now openly criticizing the 10.4 OS...

Computers are NOT static, and **reasonable** hardware and software 
decisions have to be made on an ongoing basis so that the Mac (and The 
Apple Computer Company) will continue to survive. If there's something 
good out there in the PC world - why not bring it into the Mac and make 
it better as well as increase its market share?

Come back to earth, Chris, and let's all work on getting the best Mac we 
can get  on an ongoing basis.

Best,

Henry