Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,046
- 1,674
- 126
This is what I would like to get, and I'd buy it as soon as it was released:
13.3" 1152x768 widescreen (104 ppi)
1.6 GHz dual core Pentium M Yonah with 2 MB L2
512 MB PC3200 RAM built-in, expandable to 2.5 GB
PCIe, with Radeon X600 256 MB
Dual-layer 8X SuperDrive
Bluetooth 2.0 & Airport Extreme
DVI/VGA/S-video out
Backlit keyboard
80 GB 5400 rpm drive
4.5 lbs
kamper
Diamond Member
- Mar 18, 2003
- 5,513
- 0
- 0
I don't think I agree with this. The hardware platform probably doesn't concern most of the software industry as much as the operating system. Granted, for something like photoshop, which is processor intensive and contains alot of graphics specific, os independent code, porting and optimization is more reliant on the architecture because of optimization and such but this is the exception. Most software out there (I'm guessing) is highly integrated with the toolset available on a platform instead of having lots of portable c code. It's not neccesarily extremely profitable or high-profile software but it's all the niche markets that make end users (businesses in particular) pick a platform and that's what can be really important to the os makers.
I think that, unless Apple makes a serious effort to support .NET, you won't see a tonne more cross development than we see right now.
Eug
Lifer
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,046
- 1,674
- 126
What it costs to buy and what it's worth are two different things. I don't think the dev kit comes in the Power Mac case, but some people pay $200 for that bare case alone.
No, they aren't 2 different things. Anything is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. Since Apple is selling them for $999, why would anyone voluntarily pay more? If you know anyone willing to pay more, please send them to me, so I can buy the dev kit from Apple for $999 and sell it for more to them.
That Ars benchmark clip is hilarious.
what exactly does this all mean?
that I can just build a PC now and throw an apple OS on it? what platform per-se is the x86 apple? based on unix right? so how will all of this fit into mainstream buyers? people in between linux and windows might get a MAC os?
that I can just build a PC now and throw an apple OS on it? what platform per-se is the x86 apple? based on unix right? so how will all of this fit into mainstream buyers? people in between linux and windows might get a MAC os?
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 61
How long will it take for someone to crack a copy of Mac OSX to put on a nonApple x86??
WTF is he thinking? There could be a large demand for an OS X on a non-Apple x86 system, and much more $$ to be made by licensing OS's rather than selling computer hardware. MS has proven that. When is this guy going to learn?
kamper
Diamond Member
- Mar 18, 2003
- 5,513
- 0
- 0
So it's worth exactly $999 but it's worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it?
Obviously what he meant was what Apple would sell an equivalent bundle for if they were actually releasing it to the public. You can't just go out and buy one unless you have one of those premiere memberships or something.
Apple doesn't want to release OS X to run on homebuilt PCs because they lose their QA and have to make sure their code runs on anything out there, much like Windows. There are many reasons the OS X experience is so smooth, but not least among them is the extrememly limited hardware it needs to work on.
The DEV kits have to be returned in a year. I'm sure there will be legal action if they aren't returned. $999 still isn't bad to use a fast machine for a year for OSX Intel development. I would pay that in a heartbeat if I was a good programmer.
Anubis
No Lifer
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Agreed. Ignore my brain fart. They'll still be developing for two separate OSes. I don't know wtf I was thinking. Maybe it's the whole shock of Apple moving in the x86 direction?
I wonder how "open source" Apple will remain through the move over to x86 though? Apple could end up giving Linux a bigger boost than they might like it to have.
interesting news. isent there an mac mini clone already in the works from somebody i thought i saw a picture of it. i cant remember where.
OSX is only slow on a mac, and on dual 2.7s its not that slow, because IBM never delivered on processor speeds.
Originally posted by: kamper
So it's worth exactly $999 but it's worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it?
Obviously what he meant was what Apple would sell an equivalent bundle for if they were actually releasing it to the public. You can't just go out and buy one unless you have one of those premiere memberships or something.
You know you've been on these boards a long time when you can remember a point when 2 out of every 3 threads wasn't a flame war and the average poster here was intelligent enough that you didn't have to explain every one of your posts in such finite details that even a 5 year could figure out what you were saying.
This is going to be a major pain in the ass. Developing products for 2 OSes (panther and tiger) was hard, and now 2 hardware platforms that we don't even have yet. I'll be surprised if anything (software other than iLife) gets released next year.
And supposedly the real reason behind the switch was the perception that IBM was holding back Gx improvements because Apple moved into the server space, which was a direct conflict with IBM. I believe there is some truth to this, as IBM is claiming to come out with 3 different PPC chips all running over 3Ghz in massive volume, yet G5's haven't even reached that mark. Power consumption hasn't dropped on the G5's either. I guess in the long run its better to deal with a chip supplier that you aren't competing with. Personally, I think Pentium M for laptops/consumer macs and A64x2/Opteron for workstation/server would have been a better announcement, especially since Apple uses alot of AMD tech already. Oh well, who knows what we'll be talking about next year!
And supposedly the real reason behind the switch was the perception that IBM was holding back Gx improvements because Apple moved into the server space, which was a direct conflict with IBM. I believe there is some truth to this, as IBM is claiming to come out with 3 different PPC chips all running over 3Ghz in massive volume, yet G5's haven't even reached that mark. Power consumption hasn't dropped on the G5's either. I guess in the long run its better to deal with a chip supplier that you aren't competing with. Personally, I think Pentium M for laptops/consumer macs and A64x2/Opteron for workstation/server would have been a better announcement, especially since Apple uses alot of AMD tech already. Oh well, who knows what we'll be talking about next year!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter