E D wrote:Rowboffin wrote:Well, E D, seeing as only a month ago you were claiming that the next version of windows would be merely a copy of Tiger (without any facts to substantiate the claim, I might add) its quite gratifying to discover that the next generation of Macs are going to be merely a copy of the PC architecture.
Deliciously ironic, no?
You bitch! you got me there. but I think you might be overstating the word "merely" in both counts. From what I know Intel are designing a new chip specific to Apple. And the move to Intel was more forced, than carried out out of choice, I believe. Plus If we are counting on technologies 'stolen' then I think you still have a fair bit to catch up on.
Well, you know what they say: a good idea is still a good idea even if it comes from someone else. Its nice to see Apple coming round to that way of thinking. Apple release a new (chargable) version of their OS every year so its hardly surprising that they reach the market first with some things...
AFAIK the Intel chip in question won't be specific to Apple. Its very unlikely that it would be given that Apple are distributing a development kit running a bog-standard 3.6GHz Pentium 4 to help developers port their code. What would be the point of that if the final chip was going to be something different? This really does seem to mark the end of Mac users being able to insist that their hardware is somehow special.
As far as "being forced" rather than "choosing" to go with Intel: a purely semantic distinction. Apple presumably chose the processor that suited their needs the best for solid business reasons not because they were forced to at gun-point.