[Ti] Re: like hell freezing over ?

[Henry Kalir]

William Scammell wrote:

>
> On Jun 8, 2005, at 3:32 PM, <illovox at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Shawn,
>>
>> He's not ranting and I for one find Chris' comments informative.  My
>> conclusion I can draw on my own.  What do his comments mean for  this 
>> list?
>> They educate us as the pst, present and future of our books and the  
>> company
>> that makes them, just as your comments do.  So please, chill the  
>> insults and
>> let all speak.  And Chris, let's hope Intel has a bullit up their  
>> sleeve?
>>
>> Run Vzel
>
>
>
> Yes, an Intel-based 64-bit chip would be nice. That might help  
> assuage people's concern regarding a "move back" to 32-bit chips, the  
> AltiVec problems, ad nauseum. (Whether or not folks perceive it as a  
> "move back" is up to them. I *do* see it as a step back, but believe  
> there's a light at the end of the MacIntel tunnel.)
>
> I think that's my main peeve about this whole thing. We've been  
> promised one thing (64-bit chips by ~any~ company -- I don't care  
> who) and are being told that Intel (the old enemy) (that's a joke  
> folks, lighten up) is suddenly our silicon saviour. It's a tough pill  
> to swallow after years of The Steve telling us how much better RISC  
> is over CISC, etc.

Why assume that? Does ANYONE on this list know what Intel's plans are? 
Or Apples?
Who says a 64 bit chip is not on the way? Or a RISC chip? Why this 
STATIC mindset?

I think the WOZ has said it best: In Intel Apple has found a WILLING 
partner! The Mac is NOT a 970 CPU. I think Apple's made a very wise 
move! So, hop on board, or get off...but my 2 cent's worth is that GREAT 
times lie ahead!

Best,

Henry