So far:
Podcasting support in iTunes
Quicktime 7
Next version of OSX is Leopard
Apple switching to Intel x86 architecture
quote:
Tatsukaze enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Apple switching to Intel x86 architecture
I saw rumors about that, but wasn't able to fully believe it. Will be an interesting next few years for Apple.
quote:
Naimah had this to say about Robocop:
So, more importantly, does that mean IBM is going to be making x86 processors?
Word I heard with the initial rumors is that they were going Intel.
quote:
Falaanla Marr wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
This could get interesting. Games could start to become more readily available for Macs and such now that the architecture won't really be that different from an x86 PC.
Only if Microsoft ports DirectX to OSX, which will not happen in a million years.
quote:
Alaan thought about the meaning of life:
Word I heard with the initial rumors is that they were going Intel.
How sad, IBM makes some nice processors. Just wish they would run a relevant OS.
quote:
So quoth Naimah:
How sad, IBM makes some nice processors. Just wish they would run a relevant OS.
AIX and OS/400 are very relevant, just not as desktop OS's. 
-Tok
quote:
Hellbender had this to say about Punky Brewster:
AIX and OS/400 are very relevant, just not as desktop OS's.-Tok
Relevant to me then.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Naimah:
How sad, IBM makes some nice processors. Just wish they would run a relevant OS.
Apple seems to think PPC sucks and is jumping ship before it destroys them. 
quote:
Mod had this to say about dark elf butts:
Only if Microsoft ports DirectX to OSX, which will not happen in a million years.
They wouldn't have to put nearly as much work in to the port as before, though. I know saying "just write it in OpenGL, too!" is nowhere near as easy as it sounds, but if it adds Mac owners (and WINE people) to their list of potential buyers, it might be worth it. Kegwen fucked around with this message on 06-06-2005 at 07:58 PM.
quote:
Kegwen wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
They wouldn't have to put nearly as much work in to the port as before, though. I know saying "just write it in OpenGL, too!" is nowhere near as easy as it sounds, but if it adds Mac owners (and WINE people) to their list of potential buyers, it might be worth it.
Yeah, but not all companies will get away with that... Microsoft has control over a fairly sizable chunk of the gaming industry now.
DirectX is becoming a standard pretty steadily.
Not to mention the "minimum requirements" part. Apple lists flashy buzzwords but doesn't seem to be very keen on technical jargon. You can't run a game on flashy buzzwords! I think a lot of Apple owners would be saying "I dunno, can my computer run this? I've got 'grape'." 
Which isn't to say that PC owners know anything, but at least it's possible for them to get their system specs somehow. Snugglits fucked around with this message on 06-06-2005 at 08:51 PM.
quote:
We were all impressed when Kegwen wrote:
They wouldn't have to put nearly as much work in to the port as before, though. I know saying "just write it in OpenGL, too!" is nowhere near as easy as it sounds, but if it adds Mac owners (and WINE people) to their list of potential buyers, it might be worth it.
Beyond just DirectX, there's not a lot of middleware support for the Mac right now. Considering how many companies are using middleware for easy console/PC porting, this puts Macs even further behind.
quote:
Naimah stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Except IBM developed the processors for both Sony and and Mircosofts next gen systems. They have the ability to produce incredible products, it is just that Mac is a such a niche market that they have little reason to put much into it.
Aye. I think what I read today was that the PPC 970's that the G5's are based on account for 2% of IBM's processor sales. And they don't get a very good return on the processor sales to begin with. Apple wanted IBM to bump the clock speed for desktop G5's and have them produce a smaller, less power consuming version for laptops. Apple was already having to liquid cool G5's to get them at the clock speed they were running at now. IBM has little incentive to put R&D resources in a processor that they can't use in their own high end servers, so Apple had to make the switch. The only other company actively working on PowerPC processors is Freescale, and their interest is primarily in embedded systems.
This switch effectively cripples the PPC architecture in desktop and midrange servers. I'm interested finding out how these changes will effect the stability of lesser known PPC-centric companies like Yellow Dog, Amiga, and Pegasos.
-H
Wais: Uh they don't hide their specs anymore than Windows does. It's in system info. There's a quick breakdown in "About this Mac" and a more detailed on in System Profiler, which launches from About This Mac, both of which are easily accesible from the fruit menu. It's the first choice. It's less complicated than Device Manager, at least. Also, it's no more hidden than the specs of, say, Dell. "I have a 6500L" doesn't really say much more than "I have a PowerMac G5."
