Apple's Intel Desktop Move Threatens Linux Desktop, Longhorn

Steven, please do a thorough investigation of virtualization. Vmware is a particular, proprietary instance. There are other contenders quickly coming to the fore e.g. the GPL'd Xen Virtualization. Virtualization is a very important technology and the chip vendors are making it easier to implement in future chip generations.

It would be a real service to the community if you could author the results of an in-depth investigation.

Thanks, Richard Sevenich

Speaking of virtualzation people have been looking over Rosetta, the PPC emulator for x86 chips Apple has built.

Guess what. It needs a 3 ghz x86 chip to emulate a G3 chip. No altevic, no G4, and no G5. Sure there isn't a lot of G5 only software yet, but the G4 is 5 year old tech and is needed.

I can understand being upset with IBM not producing G5's at a fast enough rate. but x86 chips(yes they will be x86 compatible, hece the developer's testing machines are x86) are not known for being efficient.

Of course recent server load tests indicate that the hybird, mach/bsd kernel OS X uses is very slow as well , for generating new threads for web/database serving

SJVN says "Either the Linux desktop gets its act together in the coming year, or it will never become more than a niche operating system."

Nope. GNU/Linux can afford to wait for as long as they like. It is not a corporation which will go under if it fails to get enough market-share quickly enough. Apple and Microsoft cannot make that claim.

"The Linux desktop community has to make a decision—and has to make it now."

I disagree with this statement, and I see no evidence in the article to back it up.

If Apple shipped a cool-looking fully-operational desktop machine for AUD$500 plus screen (call it USD$300), Microsoft would be history in little more than two years and Linux would be relegated to servers.

However... Apple have always been paranoid about keeping high margins, extracting every last dollar from each machine, so they won't do it. Not even deriving roughly half of their income from relatively cheap iPods and the like rang any bells from them. Helloooooo? The Mac Mini was a good start, if they'd followed through on that they'd be laughing.

And while it really doesn't matter what CPU they run it on, AMD would be a better deal for them than Intel. Riding Intel's coat-tails signals that Apple don't have what it takes to ride alone.

Linux regulated to servers? Not in my house. People need to know that Apple is in fact worse then Microsoft in some regards. Proprietary software on top of proprietary hardware. Plus, the Mac people seem to be much more willing to give up their hard earned money in the quest for any thing that starts with "i".

Apple may be "cool", but I jumped off the "cool" things train a long time ago.

Right on Pat. There is something more to Free Software than low pricing AnonymousCoward. The license and the philosophy behind it for example. Apple delivers non of them, so no Apple.

I thought of getting an Apple machine for the difference in architecture (been using x86 so long, I can't remember what my Motorola 68000 Amiga felt like), but no longer. Apple x86 equals hype on closed down, DRM-ed generic Intel kit.

How does Apple going Intel change anything? Who cares what is under the hood? They are still Apple.... a nice GUI on expensive (and specialized) hardware. Now, if they were to make the OS available for Dell and other Windows-type cheap hardware it would be different, but they won't. Even if they did, their OS would be very expensive.

I just don't see how this is the big deal everyone seems to be making of it.