Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

AIR should have been a G5 not a Core 2

thejadedmonkey said:
d/dx of e^u = e^u*u', right?.. so it'll be e^x(sinX+cosX)*[x(sinX+cosX)]'

I think... it's been well over a year since I last looked at calc.. or would the [x(sinX+cosX)]' go before the e... shoot!:confused:
Click to expand...

Wow. Thanks. :D But... sorry, the sin & cos part wasn't part of the exponent...:eek: it's just that times e^x. You would've been right, though, if it had been. The forums need to be updated to handle mathematics symbolism. :p
 
robrose20 said:
The powerpc architecture was not sustainable. IBM was unable to make a mobile version of the G5 and the desktop version was a heat nightmare. The G4 was a descent processor but it is old old old and outmoded. The current lineup of intel chips are pretty good. It was a great strategic move on the part of Apple to go with Intel.
Click to expand...

As far as Macs go the above is true. Put what happened was that small computer (desktop and notebook) market only accounted fro a fraction of what PPC was used for and so the requirements of the small single user computers did not drive IBM's development process. In other words Apple did not buy a large enough fraction of the PPC chips made to make IBM take notice

Today's fastest computer is "BlueGene/L" at Lorance Livermore Labs (sp?) it is build from thousands of quad core PPC chips each running at a lowly 850Mhz This kind of machine is nothing like what Apple wants to build.

Apple choose Intel because the X86 is driven by the needs of small computer users.
 
ChrisA said:
If you look at what ships with Mac OS X much of it is exactly the same code as with most Linux distributions.
Click to expand...

Would you ever say Windows Vista is just NT4? Probably not. Despite the fact that Vista shares quite a bit in common with NT4. Solaris, despite sharing a common background with Linux is not Linux. Nor are the BSD variants, not HP-UX, nor AIX, etc etc etc.

Saying that OS X is just Linux is wrong and completely missing the point. I don't think your grandma is ever going to end up with a Linux box from best buy. Why? Too complicated. OS X has taken the stability and power of a UNIX base and slapped the Aqua UI over it to make it user friendly. Software developers typically develop for 2 major platforms.. Windows and Mac OS X. Some have Linux distros, but not many.

Saying that Mac OS X is just Linux is a vast oversimplification and borders on FUD and needs to be corrected, lest the FUD spread.
 
iMpathetic said:
So, when you say that, do you include or exclude ThinkPads? Because if you include them, I will have to hurt you.
Click to expand...

LOL In a way including ThinkPads lol.
I remember back in the day when they were popular and had tons of commercials.
 
ChrisA said:
As far as Macs go the above is true. Put what happened was that small computer (desktop and notebook) market only accounted fro a fraction of what PPC was used for and so the requirements of the small single user computers did not drive IBM's development process. In other words Apple did not buy a large enough fraction of the PPC chips made to make IBM take notice

Today's fastest computer is "BlueGene/L" at Lorance Livermore Labs (sp?) it is build from thousands of quad core PPC chips each running at a lowly 850Mhz This kind of machine is nothing like what Apple wants to build.

Apple choose Intel because the X86 is driven by the needs of small computer users.
Click to expand...

Exactly .... I think IBM is shortsighted with respect to their development designs. oh well ... I like my PowerMac G4.
 
ChrisA said:
Today's fastest computer is "BlueGene/L" at Lorance Livermore Labs (sp?) it is build from thousands of quad core PPC chips each running at a lowly 850Mhz This kind of machine is nothing like what Apple wants to build.
Click to expand...

Well, BlueGene/L uses Embedded PPC chips for the massive parallelization. If IBM wants big iron that isn't massively parallel, they have the POWER line of CPUs. Unfortunately, neither of those is suitable for Apple.

And of course, that said, the 360 alone accounted for 15 million+ units of PPC chips from IBM and other partners since 2005. Even though Apple is selling pretty well now, could they have had those sorts of numbers without Boot Camp?

EDIT: It also helps that Sony and Microsoft were willing to subsidize the R&D costs, which IBM wanted from Apple, but Apple didn't feel was cost-effective.
 
Lots of people here with no clue as to the history of OS X. Surprising, actually.

First, OS X is an operating system. Darwin/XNU is its kernel.
Fedora Core is an operating system. Linux is its kernel.

You can't compare OS X directly to Linux, but rather to a linux distribution.

Anyway, Darwin/XNU was based on FreeBSD and NEXTSTEP.

FreeBSD and Linux both share a lot of core ideology, but disagree greatly on the definition of "free" software. FreeBSD believes "free" software should be able to be used by anyone for anything, with little restrictions attached. Linux believes "free" software should remain monetarily free and requires giving back to the community any modifications to it.

So no, OS X doesn't share ANY code from Linux, but does have similarities at its core level in Darwin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back