> The Articia was just one of the IBM designs [...]
The Articia was no "IBM design" at all, but was designed by Mai Logic Inc., formerly Mentor ARC Inc., who had previously designed (but not put into production) the Aureate GX, which the Articia is more or less based on. It was MAI, not IBM, who bplan's Gerald Carda visited to demonstrate in person the shortcomings of their design.
>>> They attempt to sell it as a "Hackintosh" board
>> Nobody ever attempted to sell a Teron board as a "Hackintosh" board.
>> The idea doesn't make any sense given that no version of Mac OS can
>> be run on such board.
> It's a CHRP PPC board. There's literally nothing else these were ever useful for.
How would that, even if your 2nd sentence was true (surprise: it is not), change the fact that no version of Mac OS can be run on a Teron board and thus your claim that "they" attempted to sell the Teron board as a "Hackintosh" board must be completely made up? Do you have any proof, outside of your head I mean, that this attempt actually did happen?
Regarding CHRP, you're misinformed, as Mac OS was only one of several OS planned to target CHRP. The other ones were already PReP-compliant GNU/Linux, Windows NT, OS/2, Solaris, AIX and, additionally, NetWare. Eventually, of those, only two OS, namely AIX and GNU/Linux, reached ill-fated CHRP, so no Mac OS among them. And I doubt there's even a version of AIX running as is on a Teron board.
Bottom line: No (public version of) Mac OS ever ran natively on a CHRP board that was sold to the public, let alone a Teron one at that. The notion that the Teron was attempted to be sold as a "Hackintosh" board appears to emanate from some twisted fantasy world.
> If you wanted a PPC system for typical PPC use, Motorola already had a
> ton of SoCs they were literally paying people to take and develop around.
Huh? What is this a reply to? Wasn't it about how Terons were allegedly attempted to being sold as "Hackintoshes"? No Teron board ever used a Motorola SoC, or any SoC at all. Had it used one, the Articia wouldn't have been necessary in the first place. After all, the Teron was designed as an evaluation board for the Articia northbridge chipset. Furthermore, the Motorola PowerPC SoCs of that time were embedded ones of the 603e/G2-based PowerQUICC II series at 450 MHz maximum. That's certainly not the performance class the CHRP (and later POP) enthusiasts were aiming at. As to "typical PPC use", back then PPC was typically used in embedded, desktop/laptop (Apple) and server space, which were quite disjoint (which is, minus desktop, still the case today btw).
>> So you think Jason Hou's story is true, even when Michael Coe's research
>> says it isn't and it was Hou himself who in 2003 presented his products
>> to Chinese government and military officials and in 2004 sold his
>> technology to Chinese company ARC-9?
> There's absolutely no doubt it's true.
Actually, Michael Coe does doubt it's true, as do I. But there's no doubt that you are able to manage to believe a story that is both incoherent and inconsistent. It doesn't constitute stealing when a company buys IP from another company.
> The Chinese state has been stealing IP since the late 80s,
> that's not even contested any more.
As much as there's no doubt about that, it doesn't prove that this is what actually happened in this particular case. Such general statements create the impression that you didn't really read into it. Of course, there's no obligation to do so, but then there is neither to comment on it.
>>> IBM find out and ditch Mai from their partners list
>> IBM listed Mai Logic and its products as "Ready for IBM Technology"
>> at least as long as the Wayback Machine crawled
that webpage,
>> which was until mid-2008.
> See above.
Seriously? If that's your answer, your timeline of the events must be completely messed up. To put it more bluntly: IBM never ever ditched MAI from their partners list as MAI was on that list as long as that list existed, which was until years after MAI's bankruptcy. IBM also never ditched Genesi from that list, despite them not being on that list for even one second longer than MAI. Got it now?
> According to Hou/Fukada, "the sophisticated business attacks […]
> orchestrated by Mr. Chiao [of Winbond and SMIC] led to Atum's
> bankruptcy in 2004 and Mai Logic's in 2005." :-)
> Like I said, mysteriously disappears.
There's really nothing mysterious about a bankruptcy.
E.html
