If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Register)   Apple contemplates move to new CPU architecture for its Macintosh series. This is not a repeat from 1994 or 2006   (theregister.co.uk) divider line 91
    More: Interesting, Apple CPU, Macintosh, microarchitecture, Scott Forstall, Intel, film series, GPUs, installed base  
•       •       •

3608 clicks; posted to Geek » on 06 Nov 2012 at 6:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



91 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-06 11:30:40 AM  

Gordon Bennett: In 1991 the company abandoned backwards-compatibility by introducing System 7.

Is this right? I was using an Amiga at the time so I can't be absolutely certain but I don't recall there being any major issues with backwards compatibility under System 7. Additionally I'm certain that the PPC based Macs could run 680x0 software perfectly well. The only time I can think of them abandoning the older software was with the Intel processors' inability to run OS9 alongside OSX.



Sorta. In previous versions of Apple System, the OS used the upper 8 bits of a 32 bit memory pointer to store metadata. That is fine for 68000, '010 and 'EC020 processors that only have a 24 bit memory bus (as the upper 8 bits are ignored), but it breaks on a full '020, '030 and '040 processor. So for System 7, they made it 32-bit pointer clean. That ended up breaking some software (which did the same metadata trick) unless you messed with a few options in the control panel.

Also, the 68K -> PPC translator that was introduced in System 7.1 for the PowerMac required properly written 68K software. Self-modifying code and memory tricks would cause the translator to choke. But many legacy 68k apps would run on a PowerMac.
 
2012-11-06 11:42:38 AM  

Millennium: AlphaG33k: Because we all know what happens when you ditch x86/32/64 compatibility.

Macs have such a HUGE gammut of software available, as long as you are doing:

-Audio Editing
-Video Editing
-Word Processing
-Multimedia Creation

If your usage scenario is not here, good luck. Notice how "gaming" and "general purpose computing" don't fall into those categories?

Gaming I'll give you, but give credit where credit is due, man: Macs are fine for general purpose computing.


I'm kinda wondering what he means by "general purpose computing" that he thinks Macs don't do.

/as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.
 
2012-11-06 11:44:28 AM  
Apple should stop worrying so much about hardware and sell Mac OSX to PC users. That would put Microsoft down like a rabid dog.
 
2012-11-06 11:51:08 AM  

macdaddy357: Apple should stop worrying so much about hardware and sell Mac OSX to PC users. That would put Microsoft down like a rabid dog.


Two things:
First, that would absolutely destroy Apple's profit margins. Apple makes their money on hardware. They make huge profits on hardware. They'd be more likely to become a Windows OEM, if not for their institutional desire to control everything about their products.

Second, it would in no way "put Microsoft down". Businesses aren't going to get off the Microsoft teat. There's a not insignificant percentage of users who use at home what they use at work because that's what they understand. The smaller percentage of users who actively seek out different OS environments already have. Some of them are using OSX, on Apple hardware, which makes Apple huge buckets of money, as already stated. Look: there are Linux distros out there, which are free, and offer comparable user experiences to Windows. And Linux is still a tiny corner of the market, because users don't care.
 
2012-11-06 12:00:58 PM  

t3knomanser: macdaddy357: Apple should stop worrying so much about hardware and sell Mac OSX to PC users. That would put Microsoft down like a rabid dog.

Two things:
First, that would absolutely destroy Apple's profit margins. Apple makes their money on hardware. They make huge profits on hardware. They'd be more likely to become a Windows OEM, if not for their institutional desire to control everything about their products.

Second, it would in no way "put Microsoft down". Businesses aren't going to get off the Microsoft teat.


Those. If they really wanted to fight Microsoft, they could start integrating something like WINE into the OSX Kernel, along with better GPU support, so that you could run Windows EXEs seamlessly.

/of course, that would also end the whole "Macs don't get PC viruses" thing...
 
2012-11-06 12:04:32 PM  

macdaddy357: Apple should stop worrying so much about hardware and sell Mac OSX to PC users. That would put Microsoft down like a rabid dog.


Apple is a hardware company. OS X works well because Apple has all the control on the hardware it runs on.
If OS X was changed to allow it to run on all the hardware variations in the wild, it may have some nasty issues.
Besides, it's not like Apple is hurting for profits in its current business model.
 
2012-11-06 12:09:45 PM  

Theaetetus: Millennium: AlphaG33k: Because we all know what happens when you ditch x86/32/64 compatibility.

Macs have such a HUGE gammut of software available, as long as you are doing:

-Audio Editing
-Video Editing
-Word Processing
-Multimedia Creation

If your usage scenario is not here, good luck. Notice how "gaming" and "general purpose computing" don't fall into those categories?

Gaming I'll give you, but give credit where credit is due, man: Macs are fine for general purpose computing.

I'm kinda wondering what he means by "general purpose computing" that he thinks Macs don't do.

/as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.


Jeez, how can you see anything on that. I'll stick with my PC and its 28" monitor.
 
2012-11-06 12:12:04 PM  
As someone who still uses a PPC laptop, and used an SE30 black and white when I was a kid, I'm getting the sinking feeling that Apple is going to stop making computers altogether. One day, you'll look for a desktop/iMac, and it'll just be a 27" iPad w/ a keyboard and, whatever the hell they are using instead of a regular mouse. And it's a shame b/c Windows is unbelievably awful, and Linux still has too many compatibility issues.
 
2012-11-06 12:13:06 PM  

Beeblebrox: Theaetetus: Millennium: AlphaG33k: Because we all know what happens when you ditch x86/32/64 compatibility.

Macs have such a HUGE gammut of software available, as long as you are doing:

-Audio Editing
-Video Editing
-Word Processing
-Multimedia Creation

If your usage scenario is not here, good luck. Notice how "gaming" and "general purpose computing" don't fall into those categories?

Gaming I'll give you, but give credit where credit is due, man: Macs are fine for general purpose computing.

I'm kinda wondering what he means by "general purpose computing" that he thinks Macs don't do.

/as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.

Jeez, how can you see anything on that. I'll stick with my PC and its 28" monitor.


lostintegrity.files.wordpress.com
Stupid typo.
 
2012-11-06 12:22:27 PM  

Theaetetus: Beeblebrox: Theaetetus: Millennium: AlphaG33k: Because we all know what happens when you ditch x86/32/64 compatibility.

Macs have such a HUGE gammut of software available, as long as you are doing:

-Audio Editing
-Video Editing
-Word Processing
-Multimedia Creation

If your usage scenario is not here, good luck. Notice how "gaming" and "general purpose computing" don't fall into those categories?

Gaming I'll give you, but give credit where credit is due, man: Macs are fine for general purpose computing.

I'm kinda wondering what he means by "general purpose computing" that he thinks Macs don't do.

/as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.

Jeez, how can you see anything on that. I'll stick with my PC and its 28" monitor.

[lostintegrity.files.wordpress.com image 575x343]
Stupid typo.


Can I raise a practical question at this point? Are you gonna play PS3 tomorrow?
 
2012-11-06 12:37:29 PM  
The whole reason I bought a Macbook is because it used an Intel processor, and that Apple had simplified and opened up its OS enough for me to be able to tinker with it (Unix CLI, Installable applications from wherever, the ability to modify whatever I want)

If they go back to the era of monolithic walled-garden OS, junkware software, and inscrutably named (and specc'd) processors that restrict my software choices, I'll say F off and leave them in the dust.
 
2012-11-06 12:38:25 PM  
They can go screw themselves. I got screwed over on thousands in software when they went from PPC to Intel in 2005, and after two MacBook Pros failing within months of the 3 year warranty expiring I've now given up on their laptops. Went out and got myself an Alienware with the help of a ton of different coupons and discounts.
 
2012-11-06 12:50:04 PM  

AlphaG33k: Because we all know what happens when you ditch x86/32/64 compatibility.

Macs have such a HUGE gammut of software available, as long as you are doing:

-Audio Editing
-Video Editing
-Word Processing
-Multimedia Creation

If your usage scenario is not here, good luck. Notice how "gaming" and "general purpose computing" don't fall into those categories?

Lack of compatibility almost damn near killed apple, using the X86 Line brought them back from obscurity. Looks like the pendulum will swing again.


Just what in the hell are you going on about?
 
2012-11-06 12:50:06 PM  

nmemkha: SVenus: Enjoy the Apple Tax

I was paying more for the sameless functionality before it was cool.


FTFY...

/I keed....
//or do I?
 
2012-11-06 01:03:32 PM  
Great Porn Dragon: Of course, the reason unspoken for "going away from Intel" is "We don't want folks to discover it is, in fact, possible to home-build a PC that will run a (patched) version of MacOS X".

I doubt that Hackintosh / FrankenMac systems take much away from Apple's bottom line. Most of the people I know who run them are for play and not daily use. They had no intention of ever buying Apple hardware.

My thought is that Apple wants more vertical integration of their hardware. The licensing and development costs to roll your own ARM chips at an independent fab might be cheaper than the cost Apple can get processors from Intel for, even with Apple's discount. Intel's low power and ultra-low power processors still carry a price premium over similar performance rivals.

Then there is the power issue. Although Intel has been addressing performance per watt and peak power usage much better than IBM did with PowerPC, Apple still appears to be unhappy with the current crop of x86-64 chips for their MacBook series. By rolling their own ARM chips, they would be able to custom tailor their power requirements, not to mention utilize a more power efficient architecture.

Lastly, there is the app issue. System X and iOS are slowly converging. But since most Apple apps are binaries and not intermediate bytecode, you can't share ecosystems unless go return to fat binaries. Maybe Apple wants to return to having just one ISA under their roof?
 
2012-11-06 01:04:44 PM  

jfarkinB:
I think 7.5 was the first release that required 32-bit support in the processor, leaving the 68000 behind and requiring various band-aids to run on the 68020.

7.6 ditched the older Mac II systems (the ones that weren't "32-bit clean"). By that time, I'd gotten a secondhand IIci, which was ditched when OS 8 came out. Meh, it'd been discontinued for four years at that point.

8.5 or 8.6 ditched all non-PPC machines. Again, this was four or five years after the shift to PPC.


Just because I'm a vintage Mac geek and I rarely get to bring it out around here...

System 7.5.5 was the last version that ran on nearly everything - all the way back to the Mac Plus. The 128k and 512k(e) Macs were already technically unsupported even by System 6 although 6 could be run with some work on the 512s. System 7 was pretty unhappy on a stock 1MB Plus though.

7.6/7.6.1 required 32-bit clean and such, which got rid of all the 68000 and 68020 Macs and a few early 68030 ones such as the SE/30 that were 32-bit unclean.

8.0/8.1 were the last 68k versions and technically required a 68040, but people were able to trivially modify the identifiers to get it running on any 32-bit clean 68030. 8.5 and later were PPC-only.

Puzzling for the article to call out System 7 as breaking backwards compatibility as they did quite a lot to make sure "well-behaved" apps kept running, especially the big-hitters. It was a pretty big rewrite away from the assembly and did break a lot of things that poked the hardware directly, though thanks to Multifinder there was a lot less in use by then.

/Newest Mac personally owned is from 1996
//Old Apple is a lot cooler than New Apple
 
2012-11-06 01:11:22 PM  
I like to troll the apple fanboys that I know who argue that when they switched to Intel was the greatest move for apple. I just repeat back their argument, "because it made it so you can run windows on it." Nothing like using a fanboy's own words against them.

Full context was they were excited saying that it would draw more people to use apple products because of boot camp and such would make it so people who haven't used apple before would be more likely to use it now that they could install windows on it... yes that was what one apple fanboy said.
 
2012-11-06 01:19:02 PM  
Of course, they already use a different architecture (ARM) in their iPhones, iPads etc. But what is there out there that's competitive with Intel's CPUs for desktops and laptops? Even the latest ARM CPUs are a good deal slower than Intel's stuff, and is there anything else that's mainstream and produced on a big scale?
 
2012-11-06 01:36:43 PM  
So I guess my next laptop will be an HP or an Asus...
 
2012-11-06 01:47:43 PM  

Kit Fister: So I guess my next laptop will be an HP or an Asus...


Consumer Reports are usually Mac fanboys to the last, and they actually rated an Asus model as top buy in the last issue I saw, which I think came out after the new glued-in battery, soldered-in memory Macs.
 
2012-11-06 02:00:29 PM  

Fubini: They could go with in-house chips, but I'm betting that their tech is nowhere close to what Intel produces these days for high-performance CPUs.


Intel is almost at functional 14nm node devices, so... yeah. Not going to be competing with them on performance, I would venture.
 
2012-11-06 03:31:53 PM  
Maybe they're going to try to one-up MS and the next line of MacBooks will just be A7 iPads with a keyboard slapped on and just finally stop pretending they still care about the desktop or even laptop segment.
 
2012-11-06 03:58:27 PM  

Theaetetus: Beeblebrox: Theaetetus: Millennium: AlphaG33k: Because we all know what happens when you ditch x86/32/64 compatibility.

Macs have such a HUGE gammut of software available, as long as you are doing:

-Audio Editing
-Video Editing
-Word Processing
-Multimedia Creation

If your usage scenario is not here, good luck. Notice how "gaming" and "general purpose computing" don't fall into those categories?

Gaming I'll give you, but give credit where credit is due, man: Macs are fine for general purpose computing.

I'm kinda wondering what he means by "general purpose computing" that he thinks Macs don't do.

/as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.

Jeez, how can you see anything on that. I'll stick with my PC and its 28" monitor.

[lostintegrity.files.wordpress.com image 575x343]
Stupid typo.


Nice, rocking a 133" at my house.
 
2012-11-06 04:05:54 PM  

Theaetetus: /as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.


What's the input lag on that like? Unless they've gotten a LOT better than the last time I saw it, I don't know how you could stand it.
 
2012-11-06 04:27:58 PM  

Theaetetus: Millennium: AlphaG33k: Because we all know what happens when you ditch x86/32/64 compatibility.

Macs have such a HUGE gammut of software available, as long as you are doing:

-Audio Editing
-Video Editing
-Word Processing
-Multimedia Creation

If your usage scenario is not here, good luck. Notice how "gaming" and "general purpose computing" don't fall into those categories?

Gaming I'll give you, but give credit where credit is due, man: Macs are fine for general purpose computing.

I'm kinda wondering what he means by "general purpose computing" that he thinks Macs don't do.

/as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.


11"? is it in danger of being knocked over....by a dwarf?
 
2012-11-06 04:37:38 PM  

beerdini: I like to troll the apple fanboys that I know who argue that when they switched to Intel was the greatest move for apple. I just repeat back their argument, "because it made it so you can run windows on it." Nothing like using a fanboy's own words against them.


And yet, Microsoft doesn't seem to be concerned that Windows RT can't run Windows 8 apps.
 
2012-11-06 04:56:45 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: /as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.

What's the input lag on that like? Unless they've gotten a LOT better than the last time I saw it, I don't know how you could stand it.


Played Forza Horizon on mine last weekend with a wheel, and have played Halo Reach quite a bit on it, no problems with lag.
 
2012-11-06 05:20:31 PM  
Well yes. But then just because there was a G4 with a P4 inside of it back in the day doesn't mean an imminent switch is going to happen.

I mean it'll happen sooner or later unless Intel can get x86's power usage through the floor but not anytime soon. But it shouldn't be a great surprise that most large OEM's are looking at ARM currently.
 
2012-11-06 05:22:07 PM  

MrEricSir: And yet, Microsoft doesn't seem to be concerned that Windows RT can't run Windows 8 apps.


That's not exactly true. Windows RT can run both Metro and Desktop applications, but currently you're restricted to the Windows Store for the installation of third part applications, which in turn is currently limited to Metro apps. If you did manage to get unapproved Desktop applications onto a Windows RT device, they'd have to be compiled for ARM, compiled to bytecode (C#, Java) or interpreted (VB).

And there are a couple of x86-to-ARM binary translators in the works (not unlike FX!32 or Rosetta), so we may one day see jailbroken RT tablets running native x86 Desktop apps.
 
2012-11-06 05:35:02 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: /as for gaming, that's why I've got a PS3 and an 11" projection screen.

What's the input lag on that like? Unless they've gotten a LOT better than the last time I saw it, I don't know how you could stand it.


There's none that I can notice. YMMV.
 
2012-11-06 06:18:57 PM  

Theaetetus: Those. If they really wanted to fight Microsoft, they could start integrating something like WINE into the OSX Kernel, along with better GPU support, so that you could run Windows EXEs seamlessly.


Because that worked so well for OS/2 Warp...
 
2012-11-06 07:06:54 PM  

unyon: My concern with this is compatibility, since the ability to run windows OSes on Macs was and is a huge deal for all of those people (including me) for whom occasional dips in the Windows world for specific windows-only app usage or testing is critical.

Provided that you can still properly and easily virtualize/emulate windows on a Mac, that isn't a deal-breaker. But it can't be buggy, or it's useless.


This reminds me:

Microsoft needs to kill off Office for Mac. Apple uses it as a selling point for their laptops, which are in direct competition to machines being sold with a copy of Windows. Apple has the cash to develop their own office suite. I doubt it'd be any good compared to Office, but that's the idea.
 
2012-11-06 08:48:44 PM  
The anti-Apple propaganda machine is making the usual mountain out of a molehill. Apple is just keeping their options open. They've experimented with AMD chips, and they've tested a MacBook Air with an ARM chip in it. They had versions of OSX that would run on Intel chips ready for years before they switched over.
 
2012-11-06 09:28:48 PM  

Skyfrog: Apple went to shiat when Steve Jobs left the first time, I guess history is repeating itself (except they can't get him back to save them this time).


Are you absolutely certain?
 
2012-11-07 02:15:12 AM  

unyon: My concern with this is compatibility, since the ability to run windows OSes on Macs was and is a huge deal for all of those people (including me) for whom occasional dips in the Windows world for specific windows-only app usage or testing is critical.

Provided that you can still properly and easily virtualize/emulate windows on a Mac, that isn't a deal-breaker. But it can't be buggy, or it's useless.


Yeah, it could be a problem. But I wouldn't necessarily read "new CPU" as "non x86_64 CPU" -- they may well provide the same instruction set (or a large subset of it) on a different chip. The amount of abstraction between the actual CPU hardware and the exposed instruction set has been increasing in all popular lines for a long time; at this point both x86_64 and i686 are pretty far removed from actual hardware structure on both Intel and AMD implementations. So it's not unreasonable to think they could design a fully compatible chip, either as the default/only mode or as a secondary mode that's only a context switch (like i686 is on x86_64 machines).

Of course it's Apple so they might just make up a totally new architecture, provide an emulator in the next few years of OS releases, and then pretend like they've never heard of the old system. But I'd like to think they see the value in being able to run other popular OSes at least in a VM.
 
2012-11-07 06:22:12 AM  

Marine1:
Microsoft needs to kill off Office for Mac. Apple uses it as a selling point for their laptops, which are in direct competition to machines being sold with a copy of Windows. Apple has the cash to develop their own office suite. I doubt it'd be any good compared to Office, but that's the idea.


Apple already have their own Office suite, kinda, in iWork. It's not THAT bad. Very much like the older versions of Works was to Office. However in your bid to slay the infinite loop you'd of just dealt Microsoft a hefty blow as well: Office (including Mac::Office) is one of their major sellers. Disrupting the Office ecology too much would not be a good thing for their long term future.

Now having pointed that out I do in fact fully support your idea and hope Microsoft do it soon. But for the exact opposite reason you have. The Beast of Redmond must die.
 
2012-11-07 06:43:22 AM  

macdaddy357: Apple should stop worrying so much about hardware and sell Mac OSX to PC users. That would put Microsoft down like a rabid dog.


BWAHAHAHA! Try building a Hackintosh and you'll encounter exactly the reason why Apple would never consider this. OS X runs brilliantly on Macs, where Apple has final say over the exact hardware that goes into the machines, oversight of the drivers and can literally make OS X squeeze every last ounce of functionality from it.

On a Hackintosh is regularly gets upset, throws its toys out of the pram and has a little sulk... even with hardware that is "100% Compatible". Don't even get me started on power management and how without some serious loving every Core i processor is/was locked to a 16x multiplier.

It's very much like running an old Kernel 2.2 version of Linux; works fine right up until it randomly explodes in your face because your NIC isn't quite what it demands.
 
2012-11-07 02:22:00 PM  

Vaneshi: Marine1:
Microsoft needs to kill off Office for Mac. Apple uses it as a selling point for their laptops, which are in direct competition to machines being sold with a copy of Windows. Apple has the cash to develop their own office suite. I doubt it'd be any good compared to Office, but that's the idea.

Apple already have their own Office suite, kinda, in iWork. It's not THAT bad. Very much like the older versions of Works was to Office. However in your bid to slay the infinite loop you'd of just dealt Microsoft a hefty blow as well: Office (including Mac::Office) is one of their major sellers. Disrupting the Office ecology too much would not be a good thing for their long term future.

Now having pointed that out I do in fact fully support your idea and hope Microsoft do it soon. But for the exact opposite reason you have. The Beast of Redmond must die.


It's a "major" seller for Macs. Macs make up less than 20% of the desktop market.

You can do one of two things: sell a Mac user a copy of Office for Mac, or sell a Mac user a copy of Windows that runs a copy of Office for Windows. Which one earns Microsoft more money? Which one opens up Mac users to more Microsoft products and services? Which one cannibalizes Windows and MS OEM partner sales?

It also puts Apple in a tight spot. iWork is decent, but it's no Office, and would slam the door on the small (but growing) adoption of Macs in the enterprise. Apple has shown that they are mediocre to fair in developing applications, and this would force the company into a place they don't want to be.
 
2012-11-07 03:41:24 PM  

Marine1: Vaneshi: Marine1:
Microsoft needs to kill off Office for Mac. Apple uses it as a selling point for their laptops, which are in direct competition to machines being sold with a copy of Windows. Apple has the cash to develop their own office suite. I doubt it'd be any good compared to Office, but that's the idea.

Apple already have their own Office suite, kinda, in iWork. It's not THAT bad. Very much like the older versions of Works was to Office. However in your bid to slay the infinite loop you'd of just dealt Microsoft a hefty blow as well: Office (including Mac::Office) is one of their major sellers. Disrupting the Office ecology too much would not be a good thing for their long term future.

Now having pointed that out I do in fact fully support your idea and hope Microsoft do it soon. But for the exact opposite reason you have. The Beast of Redmond must die.

It's a "major" seller for Macs. Macs make up less than 20% of the desktop market.

You can do one of two things: sell a Mac user a copy of Office for Mac, or sell a Mac user a copy of Windows that runs a copy of Office for Windows. Which one earns Microsoft more money? Which one opens up Mac users to more Microsoft products and services? Which one cannibalizes Windows and MS OEM partner sales?

It also puts Apple in a tight spot. iWork is decent, but it's no Office, and would slam the door on the small (but growing) adoption of Macs in the enterprise. Apple has shown that they are mediocre to fair in developing applications, and this would force the company into a place they don't want to be.


A lot of people at my work use Office for Mac. Word for mac likes to put random incorrect formatting characters in word documents
 
2012-11-07 06:32:23 PM  
randroid:

A lot of people at my work use Office for Mac. Word for mac likes to put random incorrect formatting characters in word documents

This must be a 'feature' as Word for Windows does the same thing.
 
2012-11-07 08:48:35 PM  

Scoth: Just because I'm a vintage Mac geek and I rarely get to bring it out around here...System 7.5.5 was the last version that ran on nearly everything - all the way back to the Mac Plus. The 128k and 512k(e) Macs were already technically unsupported even by System 6 although 6 could be run with some work on the 512s. System 7 was pretty unhappy on a stock 1MB Plus though.7.6/7.6.1 required 32-bit clean and such, which got rid of all the 68000 and 68020 Macs and a few early 68030 ones such as the SE/30 that were 32-bit unclean.8.0/8.1 were the last 68k versions and technically required a 68040, but people were able to trivially modify the identifiers to get it running on any 32-bit clean 68030. 8.5 and later were PPC-only.Puzzling for the article to call out System 7 as breaking backwards compatibility as they did quite a lot to make sure "well-behaved" apps kept running, especially the big-hitters. It was a pretty big rewrite away from the assembly and did break a lot of things that poked the hardware directly, though thanks to Multifinder there was a lot less in use by then./Newest Mac personally owned is from 1996//Old Apple is a lot cooler than New Apple


Interesting and informative, cheers.
 
Displayed 41 of 91 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report