cb27834e   
   XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy, alt.os.linux.mandrake, comp.os.linux.advocacy   
   XPost: alt.os.linux.redhat   
   From: afrosheen@comcast.net   
      
   Tim Smith wrote:   
   > In article ,   
   >  ZnU  wrote:   
   >   
   >>It's pretty funny that Apple, which actually has a very direct interest   
   >>in getting people to upgrade their hardware, actually manages to make   
   >>the OS *faster* on the same hardware with every release. Some bean   
   >>counter should really go yell and the engineers to cut that out .   
   >   
   >   
   > On the other hand, Apple depends a lot on that "sure, it cost more than   
   > a Windows box, but I'll be keeping it longer" feeling in its customers.   
   > Releasing software that makes old hardware run better helps with that.   
   >   
   > Consider a customer with a 3 year old Mac who would like a performance   
   > boost.  Best from Apple's point of view is if that customer buys a new   
   > Mac, of course.  But if the choice is between that customer getting an   
   > OS update that keeps him happy for another year or two and then he buys   
   > a new Mac, and that customer getting a new Dell right now, Apple would   
   > prefer the former.   
   >   
      
    Must...not..continue..thread...   
      
    Ok so I have a weak will. Regardless of all this Ted DiBiase-style   
   speculation, let's consider some old-tyme facts shall we?   
      
    Fact 1. While OSX was still in the works, when Jobs was trying to   
   figure out how to blend old code with the NEXT architecture, Apple   
   developed twin systems. Remember Blue Box/Yellow Box/Red Box? Yeah. One   
   of those ran natively on x86 hardware.   
      
    Fact 2. Apple, at one time, had every intention of shipping Rhapsody   
   for x86. Why they didn't is anyone's guess, maybe had something to do   
   with the company nearly tanking before the iMac's debut and the return   
   of Insanely Great Steve. (Which Steve is up to you :) May have had   
   something to do with the fact that Apple makes alot of it's money from   
   hardware sales, and can't possibly compete with 'cloners'. Look what   
   happened when they temporarily opened themselves up to cloning in the   
   90's. OUCH.   
      
    In the grand scheme of things. Apple would do well to publish for x86   
   and even consider a very slow, plodding migration. Why? Because ever   
   since it's inception, Apple has had hell with cpu manufacturers,   
   planning, production, you name it. Nearly every new model that gets   
   introduced is produced in limited quantities or is backordered for   
   weeks. It's all because Motorola (and now IBM) sees Apple as a kind of   
   stepchild that gets fed when they're ready to feed, and not a second   
   before. It's not a good relationship, and it's time to put the nail in   
   that coffin.   
      
    Now, you may wonder, how will Apple retain it's iron-fisted control of   
   hardware on x86? Simple. Custom bios, bootrom, or any other janky tricks   
   they've used with ppc hardware in the past. There are a thousand ways to   
   lock you in to a particular hardware/software combination, so it's not   
   even an issue.   
      
    Just face it guys. The only reason you love the G5, is because it's all   
   you've got. ;)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)