Comment Re:Someone building iOS on x86 ... (Score 1) 112
Of course it does. Most of the iOS code is simply Darwin.
Of course it does. Most of the iOS code is simply Darwin.
The long game is that they are not going to bet their whole existence on their being able to keep ahead of the performance curve.
Says you. Their actions say otherwise.
They will be testing the Atoms and if the Atoms happen to produce a better power and performance package, you can bet that they will flip over to Intel.
People claimed that regarding the iPad for years and years and years. And yet Apple continues to not care about Intel's mobile chips. While in the universe of all possible things is clearly a possibility, it is highly improbable based on their actions.
Yes, the iOS simulator is iOS compiled for x86. It runs directly on the CPU and is not an emulator.
Yeah, the iOS simulator is iOS compiled for x86 running on the Mac's CPU. What you are talking about has already existed publicly for around 6 years.
Apple plays the long game.
Yes, the "long game" being that they want to use their own custom chips.
Their entire mobile product line relies on ARM chips they develop (Remember who's shipped the first 64 bit arm cpu in a production product when no one else was even sampling one?) Of course they're going to continue to develop Arm in the near term.
Why would they be spending hundreds of millions on acquistions and billions on R&D for their custom chips just to throw all that away for some Intel chip that has yet to appear? Apple has already long since proved that they don't need Intel in either the iPhone or iPad.
Keeping a quiet team working on an intel port of iOS would cost next to nothing in comparison and would reap HUGE benefits if Intel manages to upset the market. They would, frankly, be stupid not to.
iOS already runs on x86(_64). It's called the "iOS Simulator" (previously the iPhone Simulator). There isn't any need for a "quiet team" since it's all out in the public and has been part of the iOS SDK for going on 6 years.
So yes, someone is probably building and testing iOS on x86 but it has little to nothing to do with any plans regarding using x86 on any devices. Sort of similar to the Microsoft's efforts to internally build and test Windows on a non-x86 platform after it gave up on shipping MIPS, PowerPC and Alpha binaries. Its more about testing and future proofing a core asset than any short term plans.
Yeah, this isn't something surprising nor some secretive thing. You do realize that the iOS simulator runs x86(_64) compiled code, right? That's how it's always worked.
It looks "blue and black" because that's what it is.
That dress is white and gold. the white part has a blue tint but I wouldn't call it blue.
No, it's not. The original picture is overexposed and washes out the colors as shown in the picture I linked which contains a second picture showing the actual colors.
Nope Slashdot is now Digg 3.0.
Nope, I've provided plenty of criticism of Obama over the years on this site. Just because a single post only mentioned Dubya doesn't mean I support Obama.
Yeah bad shit like the Clipper chip was being done under Clinton's watch and I never claimed that the only times civil liberties were shredded was during Dubya. But the "THE TERRISTS!!!" bullshit line to hyperdrive surveillance powers and shred liberties was done during Dubya's reign with the passing of the Patriot Act. But he is not the only one responsible for the reprehensible bill as there were plenty of Democrats supporting it.
Yes. I don't buy into the partisan bullshit. That's not to say there haven't been things both of them have done that I've supported but I don't play the "RAH RAH RAH! My team!!!" game that you seem to. I'm more than willing to call both parties out for their bullshit.
You're the one who dragged "Dubya" into this and tried to lay it at his feet.
I didn't lay anything at his feet beyond what he himself did. Which is that he and the Democratic-controlled Senate were complicit in shredding civil liberties after 9/11. I'm sorry that saying anything bad about Dubya makes you such a flailing tard. Not my fault that you're such a partisan twit.
Gotta love how the "BOOOSH lied, people died!" fools shut the hell up when confronted with "If you like your plan, you can keep it" or "If you like your doctor you can keep him" or "No more illegal wiretapping of American citizens" or "no more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime" or "no more tracking citizens who do nothing more than protest a misguided war" or, wonder of wonders, "NO MORE IGNORING THE LAW WHEN IT IS INCONVENIENT", like, say Obamacare deadlines or immigration laws...
I don't see how any of that applies to me since I don't and never did vote or support Dubya's or Obama's stances on surveillance. But that doesn't change the fact that Dubya is the president who signed the Patriot Act into law that provided the very powers that Obama abuses and extends.
Oops, wrong year since Paul Wellstone died in 2002. So it was 51-49 Democratic Control when the vote happened.
I hate to take the side of the frothing tard that the GP is, but the Democrats had 50-49 majority control of the Senate when the Patriot Act was voted on. It wasn't 51-49 because of the 1 seat being vacant due to Paul Wellstone dying the day the Patriot Act vote happened in the Senate.
If you want to put yourself on the map, publish your own map.
