[WMCoolmon]

That's actually probably true.

When people said 'upgrades', I figured that this would be things like upgrading the kernel to get newer/better support for some device that you own, or even doing a recompile of it to better fit your system.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Nuke


thats why you should try to do the same job with only a million lines. its an operating system, not a celestial navigation system.

I think they did. It was called "Windows 3.x". I remember all the fun I had with that......

No PnP, little networking support, no DirectX, no OGL, no nothing......

[Grey Wolf]

OpenGL and DirectX really don't need to be integrated into the OS.

[Admiral LSD]

Originally posted by Zarax
Look! A blue penguin!

Besides spamming it is worth to remember that macos is based on BSD (UNIX is NOT linux)

I know that, my comment was in response to Descenterace's comment about perfect software. The way Linux fanboys carry on you'd think it was perfect but scratch the surface and you realise it's just as crappy and bug-ridden if not more so than Windows.

Originally posted by SadisticSid
The idea of the 'perfect software' flew out the window more than a decade ago.

Demanding software that runs perfectly, given the non-linear way in which computers are used, is demanding the impossible.

Software may not be perfect but that's no excuse not to try. With the resources MS have available to them, there's no excuse for their products to have such poor average quality. The real problem is that computer users have become far too tolerant of poor quality software (both open- and closed-source). There are various reasons for this but what it boils down to ultimately is that, unless developers are given incentive to do better, they won't.

Originally posted by WMCoolmon
That's actually probably true.

When people said 'upgrades', I figured that this would be things like upgrading the kernel to get newer/better support for some device that you own, or even doing a recompile of it to better fit your system.

Install new gadget X. Realise drivers aren't in kernel. Attempt upgrade to x.y.z. Realise that x.y.z has some boneheaded new "feature" that, while providing support for gadget X, breaks half your other software/hardware too.

OR

Install gadget X. Realise drivers aren't in any kernel. Note that gadget X manufacturer, contrary to popular belief, provides linux drivers on their site. Download and install them. Gadget X works. w00t!. Security flaw discovered. Upgrade to x.y.z. Realise gadget X drivers no longer work because some boneheaded kernel dev has broken something.

Yep, Linux are really on the ball here...

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Grey Wolf
OpenGL and DirectX really don't need to be integrated into the OS.

True. But there are many other things that either need to be integrated, or should be integrated that were not with Windows 3.x. The point is that 1 million lines might seem like a lot, but in order to get the functionality people demand, you need to go way above that.

[Nuke]

what people in general do not understand is that more can be less in the case of the amount of software you run on your computer at any one time. demand something that in the long run is a henderance, and you will probibly get it.

[Sesquipedalian]

*drags thread back on topic*
[list=1]

• OS X will not run on any old PC. That would be suicide for Apple.  However, it sounds like they won't stop Windows from running on a Mac, which could quickly ramp up Apple's market share.  (I know I'd buy a system I could dual boot with OS X and Windows over any other option out there!)
• Apple is very pissed off that IBM still hasn't produced a less power-hungry version of the G5 processor for use in laptops.  In general, Apple doesn't think IBM has a good vision for the future compared to Intel (i.e. PowerPC chips have been better than x86 up till now, but will they be in 2 years?)
• Connected to this, IBM have not been able to meet Apple's supply demands.  Apple is switching because Intel will be more reliable in this regard, and cheaper.

[Zarax]

You're quite right Sesquipedalian, anyways it looks like it will be a special purpose CPU and not the standard P4 architecture (most likely an optimized IA64 CPU)

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Zarax
You're quite right Sesquipedalian, anyways it looks like it will be a special purpose CPU and not the standard P4 architecture (most likely an optimized IA64 CPU)

The article states quite explicitly that apple is moving to x86.

Excerpt from the article
The agreement means Apple is joining the ranks of other computer makers which use microprocessors built on the x86 architecture.

[Grey Wolf]

Also, IA64 is dead. Disregard all reports otherwise. The fact that EM64T (read: x86-64) even exists in Intel chips is due to the absolute failure that is the Itanium. Attempting to destroy the system from top down does not work. You need to destroy it from the bottom up, as that leads to a faster adoption rate.