From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: anothy@cosym.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20010711143637.9F863199C0@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Subject: [9fans] architectures
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 10:36:25 -0400
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c55c9184-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

geoff, while the iPAQ is very nice, it's pretty clearly not a suitable
terminal for doing _real_ work (although it's a pretty cool mp3
player and is okay for email when walking around the house). but
i entirely agree with your observation that the PC architecture is
such a mess becuase it's not been controlled. before anyone
jumps all over that, i concede that this state of affairs has had
positive effects, as well, particularly in the price/performance
ratio. but it has led to the situation geoff is bemoaning. so, what
to do about it?

personally, for a non-intel based architecture, controlled by
people who seem to have at least a clue, and suitable for both
terminal and CPU server use, i'd _love_ to see Plan 9 running on
Macs. the iMacs remind me of X-terminals, which, back when i
ran unix boxes, made my life _so_ much simpler. and the higher
end Macs have _really_ nice performance numbers. they also
now build on many of the things the PC industry has done (more
or less) right, such as PCI.

oh, and OS X looks to be the only OS i've found that's both at
least mildly intruiging and _not_ sold by Vita Nuova. while i've
not yet run out and bought a newish Mac because it doesn't run
Plan 9, and OS X isn't good enough to act as a replacement for
me, i'll admit to being interested in dual-booting the two.

oh, and the G4 cubes are just really _pretty_.
-α.