Re: NYT confirms rumor of Apple switch to Intel
Re: NYT confirms rumor of Apple switch to Intel
- Subject: Re: NYT confirms rumor of Apple switch to Intel
- From: Charlton Wilbur <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2005 10:03:42 -0400
On Jun 6, 2005, at 9:02 AM, Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/06/technology/06apple.html>
Will we be compiling fat binaries, or is there some emulation or
JITC layer to be added to Mac OS X 1.x?
From the article:
Apple, I.B.M. and Intel spokesmen all refused to comment this
weekend on the possible shift in alliances.
Until Apple announces it, we (at least for values of "we" including
me) are going to marvel at how reputable news sources have all been
taken in by a rumor that has been going around for the past 10 years
and been repeatedly debunked.
(The theory espoused by Wired claims that there's a "universal
emulator" technology, produced by a Silicon Valley startup that is
nothing if not hyperbolic in its marketing hype, that *only* incurs
about a 20% performance hit. Fat binaries would be less stupid, but
would make the build process and the testing process a lot more
complex.)
It's far more plausible that, with all the press Apple's been getting
lately, there are journalists who haven't heard the "Apple is moving
to x86!" rumor before -- and more importantly, journalists that
haven't heard it debunked -- than that Apple is simply going to
abandon PowerPC cold turkey for Intel.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
email@hidden
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden