intel and apple (here we go again...)

[souless_samurai]

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,67664,00.html?tw=rss.TEK


sadly being innovators means you get slated by your peers and ripped off...


this is one lawsuit thats impending, i hope apple will win

[stigmata]

Yes, and we all know how much this...



...looks like this:



 :roll:

The damn this is twice the height, looks like two computers, has a totally different style of construction and is butt ugly.

How the hell could you mistake the two?

[Mowgli]

jeezuz that IBM computer is a design flaw in physical form. look at it, it looks like the sort of thing that wouldve come out like 20 years ago. and whats with the whole sandwich thing its got going on?

Mowglis style rating: 1/10- a dog turd has more appeal

[stigmata]

jeezuz that IBM computer is a design flaw in physical form

Actually, the Mini has more to do with IBM than that thing...

[straylight]

John Gruber has already said everything I was going to say on this topic.

[Vega]

stigmata...how did my post have any relevance to this topic? This is about Intel ripping off a design...

whatever.

My news was posted.

On the design...that this is freakin box-y...not one...two...stacked...

[SPNKr Punk]

It wasn't so much this post, but another one I started that is wayy back in the archives. Its called "And you thought I was hypothesizing."

But eh. I honestly think people get way to worked up about the repeated thread issue.

[Slii]

That may not look like a Mac Mini but this...



...does.

-Slii

[Konflict]

It's a minute point, but for some reason I prefer the button position of the Mac Mini rather than the one shown above. Besides, the Mac runs OS X, enough said.

The Intel's Mini looks horrible. What else can I say? It's the worst looking "mini" PC I've ever seen. They should have just made a smaller tower or something instead of going for the mini design.

[Raiden256]

Regarding the recent news/rumour that Apple may be switching to Intel branded chips, I was thinking...maybe Apple are just looking at making a viable OSX port to Intel chips?

I mean maybe they are looking at releasing OSX on the rest of the PC market?

Or perhaps they are just trying to make IBM scared...

[Thunderstruck]

you serious? I expected better of you man.

Apple will not release OS X for Intel. Apple is a hardware company whose existance relies heavily on their hardware sales. If they start selling OS X for x86, they will need to support two platforms and lose hardware sales. It's like Mac clones all over again. Not gonna happen as long as Steve Jobs is still in charge.

[auric]

you serious? I expected better of you man.

Apple will not release OS X for Intel. Apple is a hardware company whose existance relies heavily on their hardware sales. If they start selling OS X for x86, they will need to support two platforms and lose hardware sales. It's like Mac clones all over again. Not gonna happen as long as Steve Jobs is still in charge.

Intel creates other chips than x86 too. By the way,  I still don't know where these "rewriting a lot of applications" comes from. Itn't it only the compiler that needs to be rewritten? All the other programs (written in C++, C, i-dont-know-what-else) only have to be compiled with this new compiler and huppa, you have a program that runs on another processor.

Do you really thing Photoshop is written in assembler???

By the way. Right now there are a lot of IT related websites reporting on a cooperation with Intel and Apple, and XServ is already running on intel chipsets.

[tussery]

Intel creates other chips than x86 too. By the way,  I still don't know where these "rewriting a lot of applications" comes from. Itn't it only the compiler that needs to be rewritten? All the other programs (written in C++, C, i-dont-know-what-else) only have to be compiled with this new compiler and huppa, you have a program that runs on another processor.

Have you ever tried to use source code you have written for windows then try to use it on a mac.  I have and numerous things get fubared when just using the same source code.  Why do you think languages like Perl and Java are so popular? It is so the code doesn't have to be rewritten for different OSes.

[auric]

Have you ever tried to use source code you have written for windows then try to use it on a mac.  I have and numerous things get fubared when just using the same source code.  Why do you think languages like Perl and Java are so popular? It is so the code doesn't have to be rewritten for different OSes.

All my C++ code is compilable on Macintosh, Linux and Windows. And not only some stupid little "hello world"-like applications, but there's a ray-tracer too.

I don't have any programs that use advanced GUI's, but even that: a GUI is often platform dependant, read "OS-dependant" ... I know you have to include windows.h for some applications on a windows, but that's just because of windows. It's using windows-specific code. If you use QT or GTK, you are able to compile your program on all OS'es. In my opinion. That's why I still don't get the problem

As you see, I admit, you can have Windows programs that are not compilable on a Mac, just because you use Windows specific technologies or API's. But if you stay on the same platform, the same technologies and the same API, there's no need to rewrite your code! (except - of course - if you're writing a compiler)

[haunted_i]

It's probably better that way, so developers will make it look its best on both platforms. I hate all the apps I get (mostly software that comes with a printer or something) with clunky Windows-style setup screens and dialog boxes that look like direct ports, save for Aqua buttons.