Comment That's exactly how it is? (Score 1) 83
Be claims (and has consistantly claimed) that they were not supporting the newer PPC boxes because Apple would not give them technical information. Since they haven't generally lied in the past, I find it difficult to believe they are lying about this.
Think about it--it would surely be to their advantage to develop for the G3 PMacs, what with PMacs being the platform of choice for many graphic artists.
Has anybody else looked at the (old) "Guide to Macintosh Family Hardware", which details (some of) the technical aspects of the earlier Macs? The hardware designs of those varied considerably, and were not generally as clean as the OS made them seem.
To my eye, Be's explanation seems to fit the evidence. If someone donated a few of these quad G3 boards to them, and could demonstrate a market for BeOS on them (such as might justify the cost of porting), I have little doubt that Be, Inc. would be quite happy to do so.
Think about it--it would surely be to their advantage to develop for the G3 PMacs, what with PMacs being the platform of choice for many graphic artists.
Has anybody else looked at the (old) "Guide to Macintosh Family Hardware", which details (some of) the technical aspects of the earlier Macs? The hardware designs of those varied considerably, and were not generally as clean as the OS made them seem.
To my eye, Be's explanation seems to fit the evidence. If someone donated a few of these quad G3 boards to them, and could demonstrate a market for BeOS on them (such as might justify the cost of porting), I have little doubt that Be, Inc. would be quite happy to do so.
