NON-APPLE PPC LAPTOP SOON?

Post by abpp
http://www.pegasosppc.com/odw.php
and
http://www.gvs9000.com/workstations.html
and others, we will continue to have non-Apple PPC
workstations and servers, but what about non-Apple PPC
laptops?
How soon you think we will get one?

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

nospam

2005-08-08 08:27:17 UTC

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

the first url looks like a slower and more expensive mac mini: 1gz g4,
80g hd, dvdr, all for just $799 or just the motherboard for $499.

the second url appears to be a rebadged mac which can run osx (and
looks like it ships that way too):

http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90002ug5spec.html

Running on the most powerful operating systems in the industry, Mac
OS X and Linux, GVS9000 G5 offers users the utmost in expansion
capability

it even has an optional airport extreme card!

and this model even runs os 9 in addition to osx (and linux):

http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90apg4wor4.html

TaliesinSoft

2005-08-08 13:34:36 UTC

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 03:27:17 -0500, nospam wrote (in article

the first url looks like a slower and more expensive mac mini: 1gz g4, 80g
hd, dvdr, all for just $799 or just the motherboard for $499.
the second url appears to be a rebadged mac which can run osx (and looks
http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90002ug5spec.html
Running on the most powerful operating systems in the industry, Mac OS X
and Linux, GVS9000 G5 offers users the utmost in expansion capability
it even has an optional airport extreme card!
http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90apg4wor4.html

And......

Running Mac OS X on these machines is in direct violation of the license
agreement one agrees to when installing OS X which prohibits the installation
on any but an Apple branded computer.

--
James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft

Steve Hix

2005-08-09 00:56:07 UTC

Post by TaliesinSoft
On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 03:27:17 -0500, nospam wrote (in article

the first url looks like a slower and more expensive mac mini: 1gz g4, 80g
hd, dvdr, all for just $799 or just the motherboard for $499.
the second url appears to be a rebadged mac which can run osx (and looks
http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90002ug5spec.html
Running on the most powerful operating systems in the industry, Mac OS X
and Linux, GVS9000 G5 offers users the utmost in expansion capability
it even has an optional airport extreme card!
http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90apg4wor4.html

And......
Running Mac OS X on these machines is in direct violation of the license
agreement one agrees to when installing OS X which prohibits the installation
on any but an Apple branded computer.

Probably not. There have been a couple companies selling rackmountable
servers using motherboards from Apple for several years.

Leauki

2005-08-09 11:54:09 UTC

Copyright law forbids you to make copies of a copyrighted work without
permission and for purposes that are not covered by your right to
create backup copies or fair use or other applicable provisos.

I don't know if any US law says that you must accept an agreement you
did not sign and didn't read before you bought the product.

I know that such "licence agreements" are not enforceable in the EU.

I won't have a problem running Mac OS X on a non-Apple PowerPC box. If
Apple want to stop me, they will merely use a customer for both their
hardware and their software. It's their choice. It should be mine.

Leauki

2005-08-09 11:57:40 UTC

s/"use a customer"/"lose a customer"/g

Tom Harrington

2005-08-08 16:45:45 UTC

Post by nospam

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Well... using Mac-on-Linux (<http://www.maconlinux.org/>), I think you
already could.

Post by nospam
the first url looks like a slower and more expensive mac mini: 1gz g4,
80g hd, dvdr, all for just $799 or just the motherboard for $499.

The Mini's pretty competitive with this. But a look at
<http://www.pegasosppc.com/pegasos.php> shows the Pegasos box has a lot
more in the way of ports & expandability than the Mini. Whether that's
important is an individual decision.

But... laptops? I wouldn't bet on it. Even aside from technical
considerations, it really doesn't look like either of these companies
would be interested.

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/

vinxi

2005-08-08 19:06:31 UTC

The other nice thing I am noticing with the Pegasos is that $799.00
is 650.00, much unlike Apple where $499 is 539 (for the same
configuration mac mini)

abpp

2005-08-09 05:09:03 UTC

Post by nospam

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

the first url looks like a slower and more expensive mac mini: 1gz g4,
80g hd, dvdr, all for just $799 or just the motherboard for $499.

Well, it is not a competition (yet). Besides, this is just the first of
many (I hope)
PPC machines alternative to Apple's.

Post by nospam
the second url appears to be a rebadged mac which can run osx (and
looks like it ships that way too)...

Well, they started like that. But they will keep the design and
continue making
and selling PPC workstations and servers.

Post by nospam
http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90002ug5spec.html
Running on the most powerful operating systems in the industry, Mac
OS X and Linux, GVS9000 G5 offers users the utmost in expansion
capability
it even has an optional airport extreme card!
http://www.gvs9000.com/gvs90apg4wor4.html

abpp

2005-08-09 05:05:17 UTC

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
when
Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

Steve Hix

2005-08-09 06:03:48 UTC

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You appear to be arguing that Macs should still be running Motorola
MC68K-family processors.

Pretty silly.

Rob Perkins

2005-08-09 15:11:50 UTC

Post by Steve Hix
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No kidding.

I didn't buy this iBook because it had a G4 in it. I bought it because
it runs Mac OS X, has iDVD, and because every other attempt to do what I
want to do with PC's as regards DV processing (making quicktimes for the
web and home movies for the extended family) resulted in frustration,
anger, depression, and general annoyance, since better DV software for
the PC was going to cost me money.

Frankly, if I had to spend money on DV stuff, I knew an upgrade was in
the cards to replace my ageing Dell, and the Mac comes very highly
recommended by people who do DV around me. Also, I wanted a Unix-like
environment, but I absolutely am tired of all the tinkering and messing
around one has to do to get Linux running on all cylinders. I want it to
just work, y'know!

It doesn't freaking matter what *processor* is used, if that's the
thinking. Heck, with gcc and X11 on board (someplace) as well as a
number of very sweet development tools, I can now run anything the Open
Source community makes, if I want.

All the geeking out I've been doing since then about iLife and Expose
has been just a nice bonus.

IOW, it was all about the software.

Post by Steve Hix
You appear to be arguing that Macs should still be running Motorola
MC68K-family processors.
Pretty silly.

Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

Rob

Tom Harrington

2005-08-09 15:57:23 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/

Rob Perkins

2005-08-09 17:22:34 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

Ah, got it. I remember the RS/6000's. Nice hardware for its time; nasty
OS. With a NeXT cube sitting right next to it I almost never used the IBM.

Rob

Timothy J. Bogart

2005-08-11 05:03:22 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

Actually, POWER was the name in the RS6K, PowerPC was derivative of it.
The first PowerPC was faithfull to the full instruction set, later
models dropped some instructions and started breaking things.

So, just to be clear, it was not 'later known as'.

Cheers.

Tom Harrington

2005-08-11 15:09:39 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

If you're sure of that, you should head over to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc> and correct the entry for PowerPC
there.

--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/

Timothy J. Bogart

2005-08-11 22:51:25 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

If you're sure of that, you should head over to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc> and correct the entry for PowerPC
there.

Wow. I will look at what it takes to get that fixed.

Note that if you follow the link to POWER, they get it right. Sigh.

Anybody

2005-08-12 05:18:50 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

If you're sure of that, you should head over to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc> and correct the entry for PowerPC
there.

Wow. I will look at what it takes to get that fixed.
Note that if you follow the link to POWER, they get it right. Sigh.

Wikipedia is one of the growing number of useless "reference" websites
that have all their information supplied by the user - some people
think it's funny to add stupid and incorrect information on purpose,
others simply add rubbish they've read elsewhere on the 'Net which
turns out to be nothing but rumour.

Wikipedia is (supposedly) tightening up control on what is added. Now
if only the others, epecially the hopeless IMDB.com would do the same
they might actually be useful websites.

Timothy J. Bogart

2005-08-17 09:33:41 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

If you're sure of that, you should head over to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerpc> and correct the entry for PowerPC
there.

Wow. I will look at what it takes to get that fixed.
Note that if you follow the link to POWER, they get it right. Sigh.

Wikipedia is one of the growing number of useless "reference" websites
that have all their information supplied by the user - some people
think it's funny to add stupid and incorrect information on purpose,
others simply add rubbish they've read elsewhere on the 'Net which
turns out to be nothing but rumour.
Wikipedia is (supposedly) tightening up control on what is added. Now
if only the others, epecially the hopeless IMDB.com would do the same
they might actually be useful websites.

Yes, it seemed to accept an edit to move the most offending stuff, and
now I see it is back to the original.

To wit:

"It is noteworthy that this architecture was originally called "PowerPC"
by IBM, the term "POWER" was coined several years later to differentiate
between IBM's server-oriented processors and their desktop and embedded
processors."

My first RS6K was a 7012-320. It said POWER. This was not a name later
invented. POWER did not differentiate between servers and workstations
as the most powerfull server at one time, the 7013-J series was PowerPC
based.

I have created an account, and may try to correct it again, but it is
unfortunate such rubbish gets put out there.

abpp

2005-08-16 02:23:36 UTC

Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
68k emulator
built-in the chip itself. The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
to the nature of
the PPC. Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
the Mac OS, like Classic.

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
was an entirely different architecture.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Macaroni, Automated System Maintenance for Mac OS X.
Version 2.0: Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more.
See http://www.atomicbird.com/

nospam

2005-08-16 02:50:19 UTC

Post by abpp
Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
68k emulator
built-in the chip itself.

false.

Post by abpp
The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
to the nature of
the PPC.

the only 'fairly easy' part was not needing to worry about endian
problems. otherwise, there were numerous issues.

Post by abpp
Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
the Mac OS, like Classic.

its very possible to have classic on intel, however, the question is
whether it is worth the effort to bother. the number of people who
need classic is dwindling, and by the time intel macs are common,
classic will be even *less* important than today.

Andrew Reilly

2005-08-16 03:26:50 UTC

Post by abpp
Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
68k emulator built-in the chip itself.

This is completely false, at face value. If you can substantiate
specifics of that claim, please post links. The 68k emulator that shipped
with the original PowerPC Macs was pure software.

Post by abpp
The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks to the nature of the PPC.
Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of the Mac
OS, like Classic.

Crucial to some, perhaps, but not me. I've never even run the Classic
environment on my PowerBook. If anyone cared enough, it would be just
about as simple to write a 68k emulator for x86 as it was for the PPC.
Easier, since the speed difference between the fastest 68k shipped in a
Mac and contemporary x86 processors has increased so much.
(A bit of quick googling brought up this:
http://www.squish.net/generator/, which looks like a fairly promising
place to start (dynamic recompilation and all...))

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
was an entirely different architecture.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See
http://www.atomicbird.com/

--
Andrew

l'indien

2005-08-16 05:00:00 UTC

Post by Andrew Reilly

Post by abpp
Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
68k emulator built-in the chip itself.

This is completely false, at face value. If you can substantiate
specifics of that claim, please post links. The 68k emulator that shipped
with the original PowerPC Macs was pure software.

Post by abpp
The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks to the nature of the PPC.
Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of the Mac
OS, like Classic.

There's one big difference that make 68k emulation far more efficient on
PowerPC: as PowerPC is a RISC processor and m68k is not, you can keep all
m68k emulated registers in PowerPC registers. When emulating on a x86, you
have so few register that you need to store the whole emulated CPU in
memory. This may slowdown the emulation with a 2 or 3 factor.

Post by Andrew Reilly
Easier, since the speed difference between the fastest 68k shipped in a
Mac and contemporary x86 processors has increased so much.
http://www.squish.net/generator/, which looks like a fairly promising
place to start (dynamic recompilation and all...))

The Mhz difference will be compensated by the low efficiency of the CPU.
x86 is really not a great platform to emulate other CPUs. x86_64 is a
little bit better...

Post by Andrew Reilly

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

No. PowerPCs are descendants of the CPUs IBM used to use in their
RS/6000 workstations. Those CPUs were later known as the POWER
architecture. The m68k is unrelated. This is the main reason why the
switch from m68k to PowerPC was such a big deal in the Mac world-- it
was an entirely different architecture.
--
Tom "Tom" Harrington
Delocalize, Repair Permissions, lots more. See
http://www.atomicbird.com/

l'indien

2005-08-16 03:31:19 UTC

Post by abpp
Not really. The PPC has many elements of the 68k and even comes with a
68k emulator
built-in the chip itself. The move to 68k to PPC was fairly easy thanks
to the nature of
the PPC. Going from PPC to x86 will not make possible CRUCIAL things of
the Mac OS, like Classic.

PowerPC has nothing related with 68k. The only one common point is
endianness. The only part of PowerPC which is related with previous
Motorola CPUs is its bus which was inspired by the one used on 88000 (not
68k !).

Apart of this, no element of the PowerPC architecture come from m68k or
m88k.

And m68k emulation has always been done by software on PowerPC machines.
There is absolutelly no hardware facilities for such a thing.

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

abpp

2005-08-16 06:45:20 UTC

I know, I know. You guys misinterpreted what I said. What I meant was
that (as you know), the PowerPC architecture has a group of
byte-reversing load and store instructions which can be useful for
emulating little-endian 68k processors on a big-endian PowerPC system
(such as the RS/6000 and Power Macs). That's all I meant.

Post by l'indien

PowerPC has nothing related with 68k. The only one common point is
endianness. The only part of PowerPC which is related with previous
Motorola CPUs is its bus which was inspired by the one used on 88000 (not
68k !).
Apart of this, no element of the PowerPC architecture come from m68k or
m88k.
And m68k emulation has always been done by software on PowerPC machines.
There is absolutelly no hardware facilities for such a thing.

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

l'indien

2005-08-16 07:06:18 UTC

Post by abpp
I know, I know. You guys misinterpreted what I said. What I meant was
that (as you know), the PowerPC architecture has a group of
byte-reversing load and store instructions which can be useful for
emulating little-endian 68k processors on a big-endian PowerPC system
(such as the RS/6000 and Power Macs). That's all I meant.

Hum...
m68k is _big_ endian, like PowerPC.
Then, byte-reversed load & stores are not usefull for m68k emulation on
PowerPC.
Those instructions are mostly used to access devices, like PCI ones, which
mostly are little-endian by nature.
It can also be useful when reading data provided by little-endian archs,
like IBM PC, but those cases are less time critical.
And it make x86 emulation on PowerPC more efficient, for sure.

Post by l'indien

PowerPC has nothing related with 68k. The only one common point is
endianness. The only part of PowerPC which is related with previous
Motorola CPUs is its bus which was inspired by the one used on 88000 (not
68k !).
Apart of this, no element of the PowerPC architecture come from m68k or
m88k.
And m68k emulation has always been done by software on PowerPC machines.
There is absolutelly no hardware facilities for such a thing.

Post by Rob Perkins
Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

Anybody

2005-08-16 06:33:21 UTC

Actually, since the Rosetta / Transitive system can supposedly
"translate" code from ANY chip to run on ANY other chip with "no speed
penalty", it should be extremely easy for an IntelMac to run Intel
code, PPC code, 680x0 code ... hell, even 6502 code, etc.

Even without that it would be possible, albeit at a slower speed. In
fact it's almost certain that some emulation coder will get something
working eventually, even if it's 10 years time for nostalgia purposes.

The only reason Classic MAY not make the transfer to IntelMac is
because Apple doesn't want to bother doing it, just like they stopped
adding floppy drives, using ADC, updating Mac OS 9 and other Apple
software for non-OS X Macs, etc., etc.

Steve Hix

2005-08-10 02:31:05 UTC

Post by Rob Perkins

Post by Steve Hix
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

No kidding.
I didn't buy this iBook because it had a G4 in it. I bought it because
it runs Mac OS X, has iDVD, and because every other attempt to do what I
want to do with PC's as regards DV processing (making quicktimes for the
web and home movies for the extended family) resulted in frustration,
anger, depression, and general annoyance, since better DV software for
the PC was going to cost me money.
Frankly, if I had to spend money on DV stuff, I knew an upgrade was in
the cards to replace my ageing Dell, and the Mac comes very highly
recommended by people who do DV around me. Also, I wanted a Unix-like
environment, but I absolutely am tired of all the tinkering and messing
around one has to do to get Linux running on all cylinders. I want it to
just work, y'know!
It doesn't freaking matter what *processor* is used, if that's the
thinking. Heck, with gcc and X11 on board (someplace) as well as a
number of very sweet development tools, I can now run anything the Open
Source community makes, if I want.
All the geeking out I've been doing since then about iLife and Expose
has been just a nice bonus.
IOW, it was all about the software.

Post by Steve Hix
You appear to be arguing that Macs should still be running Motorola
MC68K-family processors.
Pretty silly.

Aren't the G4's and G5's descendents of the MC68K family?

No, almost a clean-sheet development with Apple, IBM and Motorola all
contributing. It's closer to IBM's POWER architecture than to earlier
Motorola work.

abpp

2005-08-16 02:10:30 UTC

That is not what I meant. The PPC is a better 68k in essence. The 68k
was a better CISC
tech than x86, and PPC even comes with a 68k emulator (built-in the
chip). The
transition of 68k to PPC was a natural one. Going from PPC (a clear
better tech, ie. RISC)
to x86 is like going from a Flat Panel TV to a CRT, just because CRT's
may look better
for non-HDTV signals.

Post by Steve Hix

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You appear to be arguing that Macs should still be running Motorola
MC68K-family processors.
Pretty silly.

l'indien

2005-08-16 03:27:12 UTC

Post by abpp
That is not what I meant. The PPC is a better 68k in essence. The 68k
was a better CISC
tech than x86, and PPC even comes with a 68k emulator (built-in the
chip).

They are never been any PowerPC with built-in 68k emulation.
There was rumors about a PowerPC with x86 emulation (the 615), but no
actual PowerPC chip has ever integrated such an hardware emulator.

Post by abpp
The
transition of 68k to PPC was a natural one. Going from PPC (a clear
better tech, ie. RISC)
to x86 is like going from a Flat Panel TV to a CRT, just because CRT's
may look better
for non-HDTV signals.

???
Have you ever tried to work with HDTV signals on flat panels ?
For now, Flat Panel TV are ugly and most are unable to display TV
correctly, ie, without digitalisation artefacts and video processing bugs.

This comparison is complete nonsense....

[...]

Steve Hix

2005-08-17 03:40:52 UTC

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You appear to be arguing that Macs should still be running Motorola
MC68K-family processors.
Pretty silly.

That is not what I meant. The PPC is a better 68k in essence.

Better architecture, almost certainly. Improved 68K? Not even close;
they're completely different architectures.

Post by abpp
The 68k was a better CISC tech than x86, and PPC even comes
with a 68k emulator (built-in the chip).

Well, *that* certainly explains why Apple spent all those resources
(time, money, engineers) writing the 68K emulator so that their new
PowerPC systems could run existing Mac OS applications.

Where do you *get* this stuff?

Post by abpp
The transition of 68k to PPC was a natural one.

It only seemed that way because it was implemented so well. There was a
huge amount of work required to make it look so easy and seamless. (In
retrospect; at the time there was no little screaming from a few because
it wasn't completely perfect from the start.)

As it turns out, Motorola's 68K successor architecture, the 88K, flopped
in the marketplace; they didn't have anything to offer until they
started shipping PowerPC CPUs that grew out of the AIM alliance, and was
based on IBM's POWER architecture.

Post by abpp
Going from PPC (a clear better tech, ie. RISC)
to x86 is like going from a Flat Panel TV to a CRT, just because CRT's
may look better for non-HDTV signals.

PowerPC is no longer pure RISC (according to the original definitions of
Cocke at IBM, and Patterson at Stanford), and Intel's CPUs that will be
shipping in upcoming Macs are not pure CISC, even if they look much like
CISC from the outside.

If you can get as good, or better, performance from a CPU at lower power
consumption and equal or lower cost...it's going to be hard to sell the
idea that it's inferior.

And if the end product runs the better OS/applications such that the end
user can't tell which architecture is running, then you're argument
comes across as more than a little weak.

But if you want to be a True Believer(tm), don't let anyone stand in
your way.

Anybody

2005-08-09 06:38:41 UTC

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

Since Apple ARE switching to Intel and WILL stop development of PowerPC
Mac OS probably a couple of years later (if not sooner), it's
completely pointless having a computer just because it has a PowerPC
chip when all the software needs Mac OS.

Ilgaz Ocal

2005-08-09 08:05:47 UTC

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

Hmm, so its pointless to buy a iMac or iBook, anything mac too.

While being completely against intel decision, I don't think Apple will
drop ppc OS X that easy.

Well.. I hope. It doesn't mean if it happens, I will go and cry to
Apple. I will donate this g5 desktop to a school/university and move to
AMD64+Windows.

Ilgaz

Randall Ainsworth

2005-08-09 12:37:50 UTC

Post by Ilgaz Ocal
Hmm, so its pointless to buy a iMac or iBook, anything mac too.
While being completely against intel decision, I don't think Apple will
drop ppc OS X that easy.
Well.. I hope. It doesn't mean if it happens, I will go and cry to
Apple. I will donate this g5 desktop to a school/university and move to
AMD64+Windows.

<snicker> AMD = loser

abpp

2005-08-16 02:14:35 UTC

Well, that is why I am considering switching to Yellow Dog Linux. And
thanks to
GVS9000.com and PegasosPPC.com (and maybe others later) a Unix based
system on
the PPC will continue.

Personally I'll never get one ... well, not until someone makes a hack
that lets you use the Mac OS on it. :-)

Why?? The whole point of the ALTERNATIVE is to keep using the PPC even
when Apple betrayed its own beliefs.

Alex Gibson

2005-09-17 15:11:38 UTC

Post by abpp
Well, that is why I am considering switching to Yellow Dog Linux. And
thanks to
GVS9000.com and PegasosPPC.com (and maybe others later) a Unix based
system on
the PPC will continue.

Why ?

Why not darwin or freebsd or netbsd?

Michał Stępień

2005-09-20 13:54:33 UTC