August 31, 2002

8:35 AM

Codename Marklar:Marklar is maintaining a feature-complete marklar of Marklar running on Marklar as a fall-back marklar in case the Marklar is no longer viable. Maintained since the early days of Marklar, Marklar gains greater relevance in the context of Marklar's inability to deliver higher-frequency Marklars, but is seen as less likely given Marklar's forthcoming 64-bit Marklar-based Marklar. (via Marklar)
posted by mcwetboy (23 comments total)

Umm... Malkovich?
posted by majick at 8:41 AM on August 31, 2002

interesting marklar, majick.....but would microsoft be able to stop apple from putting its marklar in their marklars? ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:45 AM on August 31, 2002

Interesting. But what would a release do to Marklar's business strategy? They are hardware manufacturers as well. I imagine that if Marklar was released, the times would be a' changing. It would be a feature filled, user-friendly, cheap hardware compatible version of BSD. Neat-O.

(on preview, the hardware isn't MS's amberglow, just the operating system is.)
posted by eyeballkid at 8:49 AM on August 31, 2002

oh sorry, eye, so do dell, gateway, etc have exclusive chip deals? I thought that chips (like intel's) were built specifically to run microsoft's os (because that's what the majority of consumers use), like apple's chips do for apple's os. (i guess i got all marklared there)
posted by amberglow at 8:54 AM on August 31, 2002

Very strange post to read immediately after getting out of bed.
posted by zerolucid at 9:19 AM on August 31, 2002

I thought that chips (like intel's) were built specifically to run microsoft's os

Nah, that is generally all marketing. AMD and Intel would be plenty happy to have another consumer OS running on their CPUs. See AMD and Intel's support for linux as an example. They certainly don't want to piss off MS, but they aren't magically tied in any way.

Dell and the like are a somewhat different matter, since they get crazy bulk deals from Intel and Microsoft, which they lose if they start stepping on toes.
posted by malphigian at 9:33 AM on August 31, 2002

thanks mal. given microsoft's strong-arm tactics, I always thought the chip makers were under their control.

I wonder how happy apple is to have the world know they're hedging their bets like this...it looks like more ammo for the "apple's dying" crowd

and thanks mcwet..i misattributed earlier
posted by amberglow at 9:38 AM on August 31, 2002

Have I missed something, Mcwetboy, or are you a total asshole? Is there a reason you couldn't have written the post in plain English so we can understand the nature of your comment? Really annoying.
posted by skylar at 9:50 AM on August 31, 2002

skyler: Apple chose the codename based on a south park episode, mcwetboy wrote the post in the same style as said episode.

I thought it was funny, and didn't have much trouble figuring out what it was all about. Maybe you didn't think it was funny, but "total asshole" might be a bit extreme, no?

Also, metatalk is a more appropriate place for calling someone an asshole :)
posted by malphigian at 9:55 AM on August 31, 2002

Time to cut back on the caffiene.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:25 AM on August 31, 2002

caffeine, rather.
posted by eyeballkid at 10:26 AM on August 31, 2002

Great post, I laughed my marklar off. And skylar, I'm warning you, chill out or I'll post another Ann Coulter article!!!
posted by BGM at 10:29 AM on August 31, 2002

Codename Skylar: Skylar is maintaining a feature-complete Skylar of Skylar running on Skylar as a fall-back Skylar in case the Skylar is no longer viable. Maintained since the early days of Skylar, Skylar gains greater relevance in the context of Skylar's inability to deliver higher-frequency Skylars, but is seen as less likely given Skylar's forthcoming 64-bit Skylar-based Skylar. (via Skylar)

Relax, guy!
posted by chrisgregory at 10:31 AM on August 31, 2002

I would like to remind everyone that this article (the eweek one) was written by the 'chief editor' of ThinkSecret, an apple rumors site. They (as a lot, I don't read 'em individually) are usually 100% spot on wrong. I could list off a dozen hilarious products that were CONFIRMED as coming out at the next keynote but never materialised. Hours of fun can be had by reading post-keynote wiggles on these sites: "Sources now confirm that the HyperActive Roundnut Accellerator, which we predicted would appear an hour ago, was actually held up in traffic on the way to the keynote."
posted by neustile at 10:42 AM on August 31, 2002

neustile: I think you may have been confused by another mac rumours site, possibly spymac.com. ThinkSecret are actually usually spot-on the money, and certainly were with Jaguar and the new G4s. There is another site (I think it *is* spymac.com), that had the mock-ups of the iWalk and such other obvious fakery, but ThinkSecret isn't it.
posted by bonaldi at 11:49 AM on August 31, 2002

D'ye know, if I'd read the (bit in brackets) I wouldn't have needed to post. Sorry. But my point about ThinkSecret stands, it's certainly the only Mac rumour site I trust, and the knowledge that this was written by one of their staff convinces me of the intel truth all the more
posted by bonaldi at 11:53 AM on August 31, 2002

i just assumed it was joke since so many people whine about apple posts. this one clearly wasn't a product announcement though. funny.
posted by rhyax at 12:07 PM on August 31, 2002

They (as a lot, I don't read 'em individually) are usually 100% spot on wrong.

Just to reiterate the comments of others -- this is the only Mac site to consistently get it right.

As for the "apple's dying" crowd, I don't see this as hedging bets, I see it as keeping options open. I think they'll just release intel/amd powered Macs in the future, but still not open the OS entirely to any old piece of hardware.
posted by jragon at 12:30 PM on August 31, 2002

bonaldi, jragon: apologies for misrepresenting thinksecret! I'll have to actually read that one sometime. You can't blame someone for assuming they're bunk, though.
posted by neustile at 12:47 PM on August 31, 2002

I don't know anyone who follows Apple who doesn't assume they have a version of OS X ported to the x86 architecture. Though unconfirmed, it's widely considered more than a rumor and less than a secret.
posted by sudama at 12:48 PM on August 31, 2002

p.s. we can only hope they're not confusing Darwin (the kernel of OSX which certainly does have an x86 port-- anyone can download and run it) with the full-bore OSX (Aqua and all.)
posted by neustile at 12:48 PM on August 31, 2002

Skylar is just mad that the Lords of the Underworld broke up.
posted by wrench at 12:56 PM on August 31, 2002

I imagine that if Marklar was released, the times would be a' changing. It would be a feature filled, user-friendly, cheap hardware compatible version of BSD

It wouldn't necessarily be cheap as x86 doesn't mean generic parts. You could surround a x86 CPU with custom hardware and charge the earth.
posted by holloway at 4:13 PM on August 31, 2002