In a message dated 03/22/2002 10:44:14, wemeck_at_hotmail.com writes:
>Intel's new chip set the itanium is a risc based processor, so moving the
>Mac Os from a A-I-M Alliance Risc to an intel Risc would not be hard.
>Especially if Motorola continues to decay and sells off some of it's chip
>sectors. Let the chip makers compete to make the best risc, but let MacOs
>X run on all. M$ is on the hot seat, we have to wait until the trial is
>over to see how well they can still bully people.
Intel's Itanium is still vaporware. I think Compaq made an asinine error
when it shitcanned the Alpha chip that it acquired along with DEC's other
assets. Now THAT was a chip that was proven in the production arena:
servers that could crank like a bat out of Hell and two operating systems
(OVMS and Tru64) specifically designed for maximal uptime and high
performance computing. To write software for an unproven technology would be
very dangerous financially speaking. What it boils down to is: Isn't the
bird in hand worth two in the bush? With Itanium, Intel is still struggling
with problems that DEC solved way back when in its Alpha. You should see the
arguments about the two chip designs that were going on in the Tru64 and DEC
forums!!! And just because the G4 is RISC as well doesn't mean that writing
compilers for the two architectures will be a walk in the park. Case in
point: Apple doesn't even support MacOS X on G3 upgrades of older boxes. If
Apple is not willing to write an operating system for similar hardware
architectures, why would it want to for even more disparate architectures?
If it were really simple to do, do you think Apple would throw out a
potential revenue stream? My point is that Apple's strength has always been
the fact that it makes both the OS and the hardware it runs on. Its loss of
market share was due to their sales and marketing staff sitting on their
laurels while Microsoft, Dell and Compaq ate their lunch. I don't think
Apple is going to be so arrogant nor let their sales and marketing people sit
on their duffs this time around.
>Novell has moved everything to tcp/ip, we are still waiting for the mac
>client. Look at Novell 6, secure, stable, scalable, and plays nice with
>others. Read the reviews in Network Computing. Novell has a quality
>product that has rebounded from past mistakes.
I'm confused: if Novell has moved everything to TCP/IP, then what does it
offer that Unix doesn't? And networking with TCP/IP is what comes with the
Unix package. Why buy something when you've got it for free? And already
purpose-built and closely integrated with the operating system?
>I agree but IBM will want some incentives from Apple to maintain support.
Eh? Lotus Notes is already a disaster. Why would Apple want to compound the
disaster? And support what? In the pantheon of products, IBM only provides
two things: ViaVoice and the PPC chip.
>Interoperability is what I am advocating! But Apple needs a proven secure
>network enterprise solution. A solution that integrates with WANS, LANS,and
>a mobile work force. Apple has some of these component technology already,
>but yet has failed to tie them together in a Enterprise solution. Novell
>has the enterprise solution, and has a quality product that is fighting back
>against Micro$oft. Consolidate and coordinate iTools with power and
>reliability of Novell. iDisk with Novell's iFolder same concept yet
>scalable and controllable, iPrint same thing. Groupwise is a much better
>solution to Lotus notes, and is a hell of a lot more reliable then mail at
>mac.com. Policy and security rights, not to mention the awesome power of
>Zenworks! It is an enterprise solution! IPX and Appletalk are two legacy
>protocols that will go away, just like slip. Novell does not advocate
>IPX/SPX anymore, TCP/IP is the game now. Just like Apple's not pushing
>Appletalk. Look at the power of Novell, it is not perfect, but can assist
>Apple.
Why go for heterogenous interoperability when you can have homogenous
interoperability with TCP/IP? Doesn't the former add a whole level of
uncertainty that's unnecessary? What does Novell have that TCP/IP cannot
provide? And has not already provided? Apple already has a proven network
enterprise solution: TCP/IP. The world wide web works on IP V4 protocols
currently and will soon be moving to IP V6. I don't see massive sections of
the internet running on Novell. Why would anyone want to take a chance on
Novell when, as you say, that it is JUST moving to TCP/IP while Unix has been
using those protocols since the year dot?
-- Read the List FAQ/Etiquette: http://www.newtontalk.net/faq.html Read the Newton FAQ: http://www.guns-media.com/mirrors/newton/faq/ This is the NewtonTalk mailing list - http://www.newtontalk.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Apr 02 2002 - 14:03:25 EST