comp.sys.mac.advocacy

In article ,
"Daniel Johnson" wrote:

> "Snit" wrote in message
> news:C41B7AAD.B21BA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com...
> > "Daniel Johnson" stated in post
> > tZudnX1v8-asm2vanZ2dnUVZ_qelnZ2d@supernews.com on 4/4/08 3:42 AM:
> >> I think it says a lot about Apple that, apparently, *even Apple* didn't
> >> know
> >> what Apple would do about Carbon.
> >>
> > Seems they had an intention that failed to be realistic to do... sort of
> > like Vista with its file system and other promised goodies.
>
> Well, just to be a pain I'll point out that WinFS wasn't ever a file system,
> and the other promised goody was supposed to be uncrackable DRM.
>
> Besides, 64-bit Carbon was by all accounts finished, or all-but-finished,
> and therefore it hardly "failed to be realistic". Whatever Apple's reason
> for dumping it, it wasn't that they couldn't do it.
>
> They chose not to. We still don't know why. Indeed, I am merely assuming
> that there was actually a reason.

Seems pretty obvious. How much sense does it make to add 64-bit support
to Carbon now, and string things along a bit further, if Apple's
long-term plans for the platform involve important new platform
technologies which Apple doesn't intend to implement on Carbon?

I wouldn't be too surprised if this was all the result of the iPhone, by
the way. Not because of a diversion of resources, but because the iPhone
got Apple thinking seriously about new UI possibilities, they've decided
to bring some of that to the desktop, and they don't consider it
practical to implement multi-touch support (or whatever else they're
planning) on Carbon.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
                        --George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007