Comments on: Comments on 19613

Post number 19613

mcwetboy — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:35:51 -0800

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)

By: majick

majick — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:41:25 -0800

Umm... Malkovich?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:45:20 -0800

interesting marklar, majick.....but would microsoft be able to stop apple from putting its marklar in their marklars? ; >

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:49:05 -0800

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.)

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 08:54:46 -0800

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)

By: zerolucid

zerolucid — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:19:10 -0800

Very strange post to read immediately after getting out of bed.

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:33:51 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:38:57 -0800

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

By: skylar

skylar — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:50:46 -0800

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.

By: malphigian

malphigian — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 09:55:40 -0800

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 :)

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:25:22 -0800

Time to cut back on the caffiene.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:26:14 -0800

caffeine, rather.

By: BGM

BGM — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:29:59 -0800

Great post, I laughed my marklar off. And skylar, I'm warning you, chill out or I'll post another Ann Coulter article!!!

By: chrisgregory

chrisgregory — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:31:04 -0800

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!

By: neustile

neustile — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 10:42:26 -0800

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."

By: bonaldi

bonaldi — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:49:09 -0800

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.

By: bonaldi

bonaldi — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 11:53:12 -0800

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

By: rhyax

rhyax — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:07:37 -0800

i just assumed it was joke since so many people whine about apple posts. this one clearly wasn't a product announcement though. funny.

By: jragon

jragon — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:30:12 -0800

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.

By: neustile

neustile — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:47:31 -0800

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.

By: sudama

sudama — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:48:47 -0800

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.

By: neustile

neustile — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:48:55 -0800

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.)

By: wrench

wrench — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 12:56:29 -0800

Skylar is just mad that the Lords of the Underworld broke up.

By: holloway

holloway — Sat, 31 Aug 2002 16:13:44 -0800

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.