> From: Steve Wozniak <steve at woz.org> > Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2005 17:19:35 -0700 > To: "A place to discuss Apple's Titanium computers." > <titanium at listserver.themacintoshguy.com> > Cc: <illovox at comcast.net> > Subject: Re: [Ti] A real world comparison > > At 5:10 PM -0700 2005.06.12, <illovox at comcast.net> wrote: >>> So we can all wear a black arm band for a week and then get on with >>> work. But I'm betting that the chip you see in the Mac in 2007 is not >>> an x86 processor, but a new one, and one developed by those 300 folks >>> they got from DEC. > > The phrase Intel was indeed used extensively, with very little reference to > x86. But then why seed developers with x86 boxes to port their apps? They'd > have to go through it a second time. I think a more reasonable scenario is a > customized x86 processor or subsystem. > -- > > Best regards, > > Steve (ok a new size tv) > ```````````````````````````````````````````````````` > Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur This likelihhod is counter to Shawn's (and et al) apparent insistence that something secret and/or magical and/or PPC-like is forthcoming from MacIntel, while supporting Chris's contention that the roadmap is readable. Moreover, as an Intel investor, I can guarantee that while Apple may be secretive, Intel is not. Every event and possibility is touted like the first trip to the moon. Though Shawn's existential proclamations regarding the certainty of knowledge and confidence and the futility of extrapolation are philisophically sound, I am fairly content with the assertion that such an approach is not particulary applicable to Intel's general puruit of knowledge, economy and leverage. Maybe Steve figures not many really use laptops for vector applications? Respectfully, Run -- "Love means never having to say 'How was it?'" ~Tony Randall "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." ~Mahatma Ghandi