Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 4th Nov 2009 22:10 UTC, submitted by mckill
Thread beginning with comment 392954
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
But how do we know for sure (confirmed) that it was the Atom processor at fault here? For what I know, the built was tried on a Hackintosh so lots of things could go wrong. Apple doesn't support all kind of hardware last time I've checked.
I have an Amstrad machine (uses floppy,2 actually) and I can confirm that it doesn't run the latest OS X build.
Edited 2009-11-05 11:10 UTC
RE[5]: Comment by memson
by BallmerKnowsBest on Fri 6th Nov 2009 20:27
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by memson"
I have an Amstrad machine (uses floppy,2 actually) and I can confirm that it doesn't run the latest OS X build.
That's almost as bad an analogy as the imagined scenario about people complaining that OS X won't run on their toasters.
Let me spell it out:
Most generic x86 hardware == compatible with OS X, with the exception of a few artificial barriers put in place by Apple.
Armstrads, and toasters, and pretty much everything else == fundamentally incompatible with OS X in just about every way possible.
See the difference?
Seriously dude, where's the sensationalism? Back up those frakking claims, for god's sake.
Thom - pretty much all of your articles read like blog posts to your personal blog these days. I also note, you haven't posted to your blog in months (or at least that was true when I looked a couple of days ago..)
People claim "sensationalism" because when ever you report anything recently, it reads like your own opinion, not objective reporting. That is all.
As an example : I had the perception that you had a complete and utter anti-iPhone stance, but you recently did a 180 on! A month ago you were obsessing about the Pre and pretty much sounded like the iPhone was the devil's own device.
Anyway, I think the phrase that best describes my own personal feelings about OS News recently is - "quality, not quantity". I'd rather have little or no news, but well reported and balanced reporting rather than hundreds of articles that read like personal vendettas* and opinion pieces**.
Things used to be a lot better. I'm sure you can return to that if you stop making OS News feel like your personal blog. I'm sure you'll feel I'm being unreasonable and attack me for having an opinion that differs from your own on this subject, I await the rebuttal ;-P But, I *am* a long term reader though - I started reading OS News when Eugenia moved here from BeNews. I'm not just saying this to be annoying or get you mad - it's the truth from where I'm sitting. Weigh that up and do whatever you see fit with it. Only *you* can make the necessary changes.
* Of course, it is not necessarily always true - even when claimed. That is just my perception of your general writing recently.
** ditto.
RE[5]: Comment by memson
by Thom_Holwerda on Thu 5th Nov 2009 11:24
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by memson"
Ah, so this is not about the article at all. I figured as much.
This is just what OSNews is these days. Things change. We used to be a glorified RSS feed. Those days are long over. We announced so clearly in January. We are no longer what we were.
You like it, or you don't. We can't be everything to everyone.







Member since:
2005-06-29
I'm getting sick of that stupid sensationalism claim. These days it is used whenever someone dislikes an article - merit, or no merit.
Explain to me: what is the sensationalism? The article was careful, and clearly stated that Apple has no obligation to maintain Atom support. The article also made NO mention about intentional breakage.
Seriously dude, where's the sensationalism? Back up those frakking claims, for god's sake.
Edited 2009-11-05 10:40 UTC