On April 1, 1976, Apple Computer Company was founded
(incorporated January 3, 1977).
On 31 Mar 2026 19:58:11 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
On April 1, 1976, Apple Computer Company was founded
(incorporated January 3, 1977).
Back in those early years, the company was more about technological >innovation than trendiness.
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple
Silicon was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest
of the market.
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:55:36 -0000 (UTC), Jason H wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX
and, much later, Apple Silicon was ultimately
pretty innovative when compared to the rest of
the market.
The ?rest of the market? is Linux now. Even
Apple realizes that ?Unix? isn?t enough,
which is why it is now embracing Linux.
On 31/03/2026 21:59, Lawrence DOliveiro wrote:
On 31 Mar 2026 19:58:11 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
On April 1, 1976, Apple Computer Company was founded
(incorporated January 3, 1977).
Back in those early years, the company was more about technological >>innovation than trendiness.
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple Silicon
was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest of the market. >Unified memory ftw.
On 2026-04-15, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:55:36 -0000 (UTC), Jason H wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX
and, much later, Apple Silicon was ultimately
pretty innovative when compared to the rest of
the market.
The ?rest of the market? is Linux now. Even
Apple realizes that ?Unix? isn?t enough,
which is why it is now embracing Linux.
All I know is that in 40+ years of computer
ownership, my Macbook Pro is the only computer
I ever owned that bricked.
First and last Apple product....
In article <10rmgl8$gjuj$1@dont-email.me>,
Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple Silicon >>was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest of the market. >>Unified memory ftw.
Eh.... I dunno.
Apple Silicon is pretty nice, though I don't know about ARM.
The obvious alternative is RISC-V, but it was not mature enough
for use in a high-end product at the time they moved away from
Intel.
Unix as the basis for an OS wasn't super innovative,
particularly when you consider that they were building on NeXT's
technology, which was already Mach+4.3BSD, and predated macOS by
a few decades.
In article <slrn10tuu59.e2b.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com>,
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:
On 2026-04-15, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:55:36 -0000 (UTC), Jason H wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX
and, much later, Apple Silicon was ultimately
pretty innovative when compared to the rest of
the market.
The ?rest of the market? is Linux now. Even
Apple realizes that ?Unix? isn?t enough,
which is why it is now embracing Linux.
(More bullshit from the village idiot.)
All I know is that in 40+ years of computer
ownership, my Macbook Pro is the only computer
I ever owned that bricked.
First and last Apple product....
The way that they boot is probably the issue
here; the OS kernel is loaded from flash, so if
the flash part goes bad, you're going to have
a bad time.
On 2026-04-15, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <10rmgl8$gjuj$1@dont-email.me>,
Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple Silicon >>>was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest of the market. >>>Unified memory ftw.
Eh.... I dunno.
Apple Silicon is pretty nice, though I don't know about ARM.
The obvious alternative is RISC-V, but it was not mature enough
for use in a high-end product at the time they moved away from
Intel.
Unix as the basis for an OS wasn't super innovative,
particularly when you consider that they were building on NeXT's
technology, which was already Mach+4.3BSD, and predated macOS by
a few decades.
On that field, I guess there's also SGI Irix? (Better known by its stage >name, "It's a UNIX system, I know this!")
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:55:36 -0000 (UTC), Jason H wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple
Silicon was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest
of the market.
The ?rest of the market? is Linux now. Even Apple realizes that ?Unix?
isn?t enough, which is why it is now embracing Linux.
Apple Silicon is pretty nice, though I don't know about ARM.
The obvious alternative is RISC-V, but it was not mature enough
for use in a high-end product at the time they moved away from
Intel.
In article <10rmgl8$gjuj$1@dont-email.me>,
Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2026 21:59, Lawrence DOliveiro wrote:
On 31 Mar 2026 19:58:11 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
On April 1, 1976, Apple Computer Company was founded
(incorporated January 3, 1977).
Back in those early years, the company was more about technological >>>innovation than trendiness.
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple Silicon >>was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest of the market. >>Unified memory ftw.
Eh.... I dunno.
Apple Silicon is pretty nice, though I don't know about ARM.
The obvious alternative is RISC-V, but it was not mature enough
for use in a high-end product at the time they moved away from
Intel.
On 2026-04-15, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <10rmgl8$gjuj$1@dont-email.me>,
Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple Silicon >>>was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest of the market. >>>Unified memory ftw.
Eh.... I dunno.
Apple Silicon is pretty nice, though I don't know about ARM.
The obvious alternative is RISC-V, but it was not mature enough
for use in a high-end product at the time they moved away from
Intel.
Unix as the basis for an OS wasn't super innovative,
particularly when you consider that they were building on NeXT's
technology, which was already Mach+4.3BSD, and predated macOS by
a few decades.
On that field, I guess there's also SGI Irix? (Better known by its stage >name, "It's a UNIX system, I know this!")
On 4/15/26 06:11, Dan Cross wrote:
Apple Silicon is pretty nice, though I don't know about ARM.
The obvious alternative is RISC-V, but it was not mature enough
for use in a high-end product at the time they moved away from
Intel.
From what I read, RISC-V still isn't quite there yet. I think the
performance is still below other chip families, but, of course, a lot of >engineering went into squeezing more performance out of, for example.
Intel. I expect RISC-V will soon be on par.
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) writes:
In article <10rmgl8$gjuj$1@dont-email.me>,
Jason H <jason_hindle@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 31/03/2026 21:59, Lawrence DOliveiro wrote:
On 31 Mar 2026 19:58:11 GMT, Stefan Ram wrote:
On April 1, 1976, Apple Computer Company was founded
(incorporated January 3, 1977).
Back in those early years, the company was more about technological >>>>innovation than trendiness.
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple Silicon >>>was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest of the market. >>>Unified memory ftw.
Eh.... I dunno.
Apple Silicon is pretty nice, though I don't know about ARM.
The obvious alternative is RISC-V, but it was not mature enough
for use in a high-end product at the time they moved away from
Intel.
RISC-V didn't exist when Apple started working on the ARMv8-based
silicon (circa 2012-2013). Apple was part of the TAB[*] (as was my >employer) and helped guide the development of 64-bit ARMv8.
[*] ARM's Technical Advisory Board
Adopting ARM on the desktop does make some sense from Apple's
perspective, I imagine. They already have a robust ecosystem
for using it on handheld-devices; standardizing on one ISA
across their product lines is a no-brainer.
In article <slrn10tuu59.e2b.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com>,
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:
On 2026-04-15, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:55:36 -0000 (UTC), Jason H wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX
and, much later, Apple Silicon was ultimately
pretty innovative when compared to the rest of
the market.
The ?rest of the market? is Linux now. Even
Apple realizes that ?Unix? isn?t enough,
which is why it is now embracing Linux.
(More bullshit from the village idiot.)
Irix was basically SVR4 with a bunch of SGI's cool graphics
stuff layered on top of it, but in terms of the actual OS, it
wasn't all _that_ different from other, similar commercial
Unixes out there at the time. I remember thinking that SunOS,
OSF/1, and even Solaris, were more pleasant to work with.
On 15/04/2026 14:13, Dan Cross wrote:
In article <slrn10tuu59.e2b.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com>,
oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote:
On 2026-04-15, Lawrence D?Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:55:36 -0000 (UTC), Jason H wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX
and, much later, Apple Silicon was ultimately
pretty innovative when compared to the rest of
the market.
The ?rest of the market? is Linux now. Even
Apple realizes that ?Unix? isn?t enough,
which is why it is now embracing Linux.
(More bullshit from the village idiot.)
Is there any chance that the village idiot
is actually a "hallucinating" LLM?
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 14:04:29 -0000 (UTC)
cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wrote:
Irix was basically SVR4 with a bunch of SGI's cool graphics
stuff layered on top of it, but in terms of the actual OS, it
wasn't all _that_ different from other, similar commercial
Unixes out there at the time. I remember thinking that SunOS,
OSF/1, and even Solaris, were more pleasant to work with.
Irix's "Interactive Desktop" was much nicer and more polished than the
GUIs offered by other commercial Unices at the time. Had a decent GUI
package manager, as well.
Adopting ARM on the desktop does make some sense from Apple's
perspective, I imagine. They already have a robust ecosystem
for using it on handheld-devices; standardizing on one ISA
across their product lines is a no-brainer.
More than that, they already had extensive experience designing chips using ARM
components. I gather the M series of chips in the macbooks are quite similar to
the A series in the phones and tablets.
The new Macbook Neo has an A18 Pro chip, with five GPU cores rather
than the 6 in the version they put in the phone. It was apparently a
way to use slightly defective chips with one broken GPU core they
could disable, thereby letting them sell chips they would otherwise
have thrown away.
The Neo has been so popular that they've run out of 5 core chips. Oops.
They could ask TSMC to do another run of A16 but those would be way
more expensive than the rejects they've been using.
The new Macbook Neo has an A18 Pro chip, with five GPU cores rather
than the 6 in the version they put in the phone. It was apparently a
way to use slightly defective chips with one broken GPU core they
could disable, thereby letting them sell chips they would otherwise
have thrown away.
The Neo has been so popular that they've run out of 5 core chips. Oops.
They could ask TSMC to do another run of A16 but those would be way
more expensive than the rejects they've been using.
According to Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net>:
Adopting ARM on the desktop does make some sense from Apple's
perspective, I imagine. They already have a robust ecosystem
for using it on handheld-devices; standardizing on one ISA
across their product lines is a no-brainer.
More than that, they already had extensive experience designing chips using ARM
components. I gather the M series of chips in the macbooks are quite similar to
the A series in the phones and tablets.
The new Macbook Neo has an A18 Pro chip, with five GPU cores rather
than the 6 in the version they put in the phone. It was apparently a
way to use slightly defective chips with one broken GPU core they
could disable, thereby letting them sell chips they would otherwise
have thrown away.
The Neo has been so popular that they've run out of 5 core chips. Oops.
They could ask TSMC to do another run of A16 but those would be way
more expensive than the rejects they've been using.
The Neo has been so popular that they've run out of 5 core chips. Oops. >>They could ask TSMC to do another run of A16 but those would be way
more expensive than the rejects they've been using.
They can also use the 6-core version and fuse out one of the cores
with a small revenue hit.
Irix's "Interactive Desktop" was much nicer and more polished than
the GUIs offered by other commercial Unices at the time. Had a
decent GUI package manager, as well.
On 4/14/26 22:47, Lawrence D?Oliveiro wrote:
On Tue, 14 Apr 2026 22:55:36 -0000 (UTC), Jason H wrote:
To be fair to them, the whole move to UNIX and, much later, Apple
Silicon was ultimately pretty innovative when compared to the rest
of the market.
The ?rest of the market? is Linux now. Even Apple realizes that
?Unix? isn?t enough, which is why it is now embracing Linux.
Operating systems reached the point a while ago where there just
weren't many "gee whiz" features that could be added to
differentiate one from another. Except for some mainframe systems,
everything is "unix" now.
All I know is that in 40+ years of computer ownership, my Macbook
Pro is the only computer I ever owned that bricked.
First and last Apple product....
Lots of new features keep going into the Linux kernel. This is why
Microsoft and Apple are now being forced into adding it to their
product offerings.
Linux is unixy. Apple went full unixy nineteen years ago with OSX
Leopard.
On 16 Apr 2026 00:01:43 GMT, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
Linux is unixy. Apple went full unixy nineteen years ago with OSX
Leopard.
Wonder why Apple needs to add actual Linux into its OS, then?
What?s missing in Apple?s ?unixy??
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 13 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 27:44:03 |
| Calls: | 211 |
| Files: | 21,502 |
| Messages: | 80,905 |