[Ti] like hell freezing over ?

[Chris Olson]

On Jun 7, 2005, at 4:42 PM, Shawn King wrote:

> No one says that. But extremist attitudes like yours do nothing to 
> advance the discussion.

OK, so it's extremist to be extremely miffed that two years ago I was 
promised and handed a 64-bit dev roadmap.  And now a switch to a 
different cpu architecture is announced with the 64-bit part totally 
gone from the map for the new architecture.  All I'm told is that I'll 
have G5 hardware to work with until (maybe) 2007.  No indication after 
that if it's going to be x86-64 (or Intel's reverse engineered version 
- IA32e), or even if Intel is going to use this opportunity to sell 
their IA64 arch.  You don't find that the least bit questionable Shawn?

I _can't_ port to Intel on Mac because Apple is giving me no avenue to 
do so.  It has nothing to do with wanting a Ferrari or "then don't - 
nobody is forcing you".

Apple targeted a market segment.  64-bit applications aren't needed by 
most people, but where they are needed it's in high end computing tasks 
run on cutting edge hardware.  If the hardware doesn't stay cutting 
edge the task (and application) will be moved elsewhere because it 
demands it.  Being Mac OS X doesn't run on other PowerPC hardware (such 
as from IBM) my software is useless anywhere else, or past the 2007 
deadline, because affordable cutting edge hardware to run it on is 
going to be non-existent.  That is, unless it can be ported to 
something else.  But to port it you have to know what you're porting it 
to.  It's called being part of the market that Apple targeted being 
left out in the cold, and they're not even handing me a sweater.

Like everybody says, for the majority it'll work out OK.  For some it's 
not going to.  Every coin has two sides.
--
Chris