Ted Leung on the air
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Ted Leung on the air: Open Source, Java, Python, and ...
Tue, 07 Jun 2005
MacIntel commentary
[09:58] |
[computers/operating_systems/macosx] |
# |
TB |
F |
G |
14 Comments |
Here are some more thoughts on MacIntel after watching the keynote for myself (before was off the IRC's), (briefly) glancing through the universal binary guidelines, and reading some reactions. I promise to give this a break for a while.
Schiller has said that OS X is going to run on Apple hardware only. I believe that this means that Apple will do custom ASICs, etc for their x86 boxes. The Macintosh experience is the result of intimate integration of the hardware and software. That's how things like instant-on, etc work. Apple is going to need to do some work in this area, especially to preserve the instant on capability in x86 "Power"Books. These custom ASICS are going to make it harder to get OS X running on Windows oriented x86 hardware. This is all speculation on my part, of course. If Apple continues to make the source to Darwin x86 available, then that should give the hackers plenty of info to try to make/hack a version of OS X that would run on whitebox hardware.
My guess is that the first target for Intel hardware is portables, not the Mac mini, or iMac. That's the part of the product line that is hurting the worst, and the timeline for Yonah, early 2006 matches the timeframe for Apple to have shipping Intel based hardware. My 1.25GHz Powerbook can't initiate 4 way video iChat, or play Quicktime MPEG-4 without occasional hiccups, and I've never gotten battery life longer than 3 hours (and that's with the display turned all the way down, and all the radios (WiFi and Bluetooth) turned off.
All of the Intel processors that are likely go into Macs will support Intel's Vanderpool virtualization technology, which might prove interesting for running Windows/Linux/FreeBSD/Solaris 10 on/inside OS X.
I think that Intel based Mac will make it easier for me to persuade people to try a Mac. "Try the Mac software for 6 months. If you don't like it you can always pave it over with Windows". Apples to Windows, head to head on the same hardware. Apple has no reason to fear a fair fight on even ground.
Here are a few early developer reports:
Rogue Amoeba
Bob Ippolito on MacPython
Ted, what generation/size is your PBook? I know that friends of mine push 4 hours or more out of their latest-models, as I certainly do on occasion with my iBook G4 (which is admittedly less of a power sucker).
Aside from the roadblocks that Apple will put in place (which will only be a matter of time), OS X-on-whitebox would mean that someone's going to have to somehow wedge drivers in there, at least for more generic video cards. Consider how tightly coupled the Quartz engine is to hardware acceleration, I can't imagine OS X without a supported video card would be very pleasant.
Posted by David Warde-Farley at Tue Jun 7 10:23:45 2005
Aside from the roadblocks that Apple will put in place (which will only be a matter of time), OS X-on-whitebox would mean that someone's going to have to somehow wedge drivers in there, at least for more generic video cards. Consider how tightly coupled the Quartz engine is to hardware acceleration, I can't imagine OS X without a supported video card would be very pleasant.
Posted by David Warde-Farley at Tue Jun 7 10:23:45 2005
What leaves me a little baffled is the timing of the announcement. Yes, developers will definitely need time to come to grips with this, but at this point a whole bunch of people who were thinking about taking the plunge will say "oh, hold on, let me wait until all this settles." And what is Apple going to do with the existing product lines? Let them stagnate for a year to 18 months? It would make a whole lot more sense if the first consumer boxes were showing up by the end of THIS year.
Not to mention that suddenly developers get to spend the next year fiddling around with how to cope with dual ISAs instead of thinking up how to do new, cool things on a platform that was only starting to stabilize.
Well hey, as you say if we don't like it, we can always pave over it with Win^H^H^HLinux
Posted by Wilhelm at Tue Jun 7 10:58:26 2005
Not to mention that suddenly developers get to spend the next year fiddling around with how to cope with dual ISAs instead of thinking up how to do new, cool things on a platform that was only starting to stabilize.
Well hey, as you say if we don't like it, we can always pave over it with Win^H^H^HLinux
Posted by Wilhelm at Tue Jun 7 10:58:26 2005
cnet's sources say that the mini will be one of the first to use Intel chips... perhaps the Intel chips have a better price/performance ratio and Apple really wants to push the mini.
I agree that getting an Intel-based PowerBook out sooner than later will make a lot of folks happy, though!
Posted by Kevin Dangoor at Tue Jun 7 13:15:19 2005
I agree that getting an Intel-based PowerBook out sooner than later will make a lot of folks happy, though!
Posted by Kevin Dangoor at Tue Jun 7 13:15:19 2005
It seems like QA issues with laptops are a really big deal, so you'd want to start deployment on a desktop where your tolerances are higher and recalls are less expensive.
As for the try-before-you-commit, will Windows run on these machines? I'd be surprised if it did, though I'm sure Linux will (along with other Darwin-based systems). Apple isn't going to reach out to Microsoft on this one, and Microsoft certainly won't reach out either, so even though the practical barriers are small there is simply no will.
Still, this seems practical. x86 is the VM of our time. A really low-level VM, but a VM nonetheless, and I think that's given the x86 ISA a chance to evolve in ways PPC couldn't.
It is funny though; just when we got good at CPU portability (it really doesn't seem like the problem it once was) it then becomes significantly less important.
Posted by Ian Bicking at Tue Jun 7 13:46:38 2005
As for the try-before-you-commit, will Windows run on these machines? I'd be surprised if it did, though I'm sure Linux will (along with other Darwin-based systems). Apple isn't going to reach out to Microsoft on this one, and Microsoft certainly won't reach out either, so even though the practical barriers are small there is simply no will.
Still, this seems practical. x86 is the VM of our time. A really low-level VM, but a VM nonetheless, and I think that's given the x86 ISA a chance to evolve in ways PPC couldn't.
It is funny though; just when we got good at CPU portability (it really doesn't seem like the problem it once was) it then becomes significantly less important.
Posted by Ian Bicking at Tue Jun 7 13:46:38 2005
I think one of the most compelling factors for people to migrate to an x86 apple platform would be if Apple did nice integration with Xen (should be possible with vanderpool chipsets coming out). Then they would be the only platform that supports OSX (since they want to limit OSX to apple x86), Windows and Linux out of the box.
Many people who want the "applications" would be able to run their nice macs, and then boot up a virtual windows session (running at ~99% speed) to run critical apps.
(I've listed a few other possible implications of the platform switch on my blog)
Posted by matt at Tue Jun 7 17:26:08 2005
Many people who want the "applications" would be able to run their nice macs, and then boot up a virtual windows session (running at ~99% speed) to run critical apps.
(I've listed a few other possible implications of the platform switch on my blog)
Posted by matt at Tue Jun 7 17:26:08 2005
The possibility of a machine that can run both Mac and Windows is exciting.
This virtualisation talk is even more so. Running windows apps on Mac OS X would be a dream come true for me. I'm stuck in Windows but I dream of OSX
Posted by Sean at Tue Jun 7 17:41:33 2005
This virtualisation talk is even more so. Running windows apps on Mac OS X would be a dream come true for me. I'm stuck in Windows but I dream of OSX
Posted by Sean at Tue Jun 7 17:41:33 2005
cherry picked from the inq/sources
There maybe lots of good technology reasons for Apple to be looking at Intel. The NoteBook market being one. I think however that there are other serious business reasons for Apple to be looking at the X86 architecture. An architecture they have summarily dismissed for near 25 years. Until now.
IBM has made a chain of seemingly unrelated interesting moves that are just now taking on the shape of a grand strategy. A strategy that is not so much world conquering as it is the long awaited moment of revenge. And what sweet revenge it will be if IBM can pull this off. Not that it has anything much to do with Apple or Sun. They just become road kill as IBM races down the road to their long awaited moment of destiny.
A few events in particular have caused me to think that the great revenge is not so far fetched an idea as one might suspect. The events are:
1) Support for GNU/Linux as a universal operating system, owned by none, used by all.
2) The release of IBM WorkPlace, a highly portable desktop productivity environment that ships with accelerated connectivity to the IBM Eclipse based developer environment, and the IBM server stack of Websphere, Notes, and DB2. While the European Union and the USA Justice Department worry about how to force Microsoft into opening up server, device and file format interfaces, IBM has eliminated the problem. It's simple, just replace the monopolist desktop environment with one that is open, interoperable, and XML ready. Not to mention that WorkPlace has been significantly enhanced (pre connected) to work with IBM's stack.
3) Shifting of IBM's entire PC division to third party, and future commodity champion, Lenovo.
4) The Power PC 6 chip, scheduled for release this coming November.
The PP6 is expected to have a ten fold computing power increase over anything the X86 line has in production. And except for dual core manufacturing methods, there's not much on the X86 horizon that offers any hope of competing against the PP6.
IBM has refused to license the PP6 to the largest and most successful distributor of the Power PC line, Apple. Think about that. If your Apple, and you see that IBM is setting themselves up to be an Intel like distributor of the PP6, yet they won't license the damn thing to the biggest provider of the entire PPC line? Steve Jobs has to be wondering what's up with that.
Through IBM's incredible support of GNU/Linux and Open Source, the PP6 has an advantage that no other revolutionary chip design has ever had. A universal operating system, and a vast application layer that incredibly spans desktop, server, devices and even the developer tools - all awaiting the release of the PP6. Most new chip architectures face the challenge of growing a participatory ecosystem of hardware and software services and solutions. The cost of going from zero to sixty with critically important collaborative ecosystems is way beyond the reach of most new cpu architectures. Just ask Transmeta how difficult it is. And they had one of the greatest, most eco connected, systems programmers who ever lived trying to crack that nut.
Apple, Dell, Sun, and maybe even RedHat (think IBM sponsoring Novell's purchase of SuSE to the tune of $50M ) are sadly positioned to be collateral damage in this race to Armaggedon. Maybe if Apple had been a better open source citizen they might have gotten their PP6 license. But somewhere along the way someone at IBM figured out that the GNU/Linux
I look at these events, which are but a few of the efforts IBM has cooking (the Eclipse ecosystem is extraordinary), and i can't help but think that everything IBM is doing points in one direction. They are heading for a showdown with WinTel. It's for all the marbles. And it's revenge as we've never imagined possible.
~ge~
Posted by shep husted at Tue Jun 7 23:37:42 2005
There maybe lots of good technology reasons for Apple to be looking at Intel. The NoteBook market being one. I think however that there are other serious business reasons for Apple to be looking at the X86 architecture. An architecture they have summarily dismissed for near 25 years. Until now.
IBM has made a chain of seemingly unrelated interesting moves that are just now taking on the shape of a grand strategy. A strategy that is not so much world conquering as it is the long awaited moment of revenge. And what sweet revenge it will be if IBM can pull this off. Not that it has anything much to do with Apple or Sun. They just become road kill as IBM races down the road to their long awaited moment of destiny.
A few events in particular have caused me to think that the great revenge is not so far fetched an idea as one might suspect. The events are:
1) Support for GNU/Linux as a universal operating system, owned by none, used by all.
2) The release of IBM WorkPlace, a highly portable desktop productivity environment that ships with accelerated connectivity to the IBM Eclipse based developer environment, and the IBM server stack of Websphere, Notes, and DB2. While the European Union and the USA Justice Department worry about how to force Microsoft into opening up server, device and file format interfaces, IBM has eliminated the problem. It's simple, just replace the monopolist desktop environment with one that is open, interoperable, and XML ready. Not to mention that WorkPlace has been significantly enhanced (pre connected) to work with IBM's stack.
3) Shifting of IBM's entire PC division to third party, and future commodity champion, Lenovo.
4) The Power PC 6 chip, scheduled for release this coming November.
The PP6 is expected to have a ten fold computing power increase over anything the X86 line has in production. And except for dual core manufacturing methods, there's not much on the X86 horizon that offers any hope of competing against the PP6.
IBM has refused to license the PP6 to the largest and most successful distributor of the Power PC line, Apple. Think about that. If your Apple, and you see that IBM is setting themselves up to be an Intel like distributor of the PP6, yet they won't license the damn thing to the biggest provider of the entire PPC line? Steve Jobs has to be wondering what's up with that.
Through IBM's incredible support of GNU/Linux and Open Source, the PP6 has an advantage that no other revolutionary chip design has ever had. A universal operating system, and a vast application layer that incredibly spans desktop, server, devices and even the developer tools - all awaiting the release of the PP6. Most new chip architectures face the challenge of growing a participatory ecosystem of hardware and software services and solutions. The cost of going from zero to sixty with critically important collaborative ecosystems is way beyond the reach of most new cpu architectures. Just ask Transmeta how difficult it is. And they had one of the greatest, most eco connected, systems programmers who ever lived trying to crack that nut.
Apple, Dell, Sun, and maybe even RedHat (think IBM sponsoring Novell's purchase of SuSE to the tune of $50M ) are sadly positioned to be collateral damage in this race to Armaggedon. Maybe if Apple had been a better open source citizen they might have gotten their PP6 license. But somewhere along the way someone at IBM figured out that the GNU/Linux
I look at these events, which are but a few of the efforts IBM has cooking (the Eclipse ecosystem is extraordinary), and i can't help but think that everything IBM is doing points in one direction. They are heading for a showdown with WinTel. It's for all the marbles. And it's revenge as we've never imagined possible.
~ge~
Posted by shep husted at Tue Jun 7 23:37:42 2005
David,
It's a Aluminum 15" FW800 @ 1.25GHz.
Wilhelm,
I think we will see Intel boxes announced at Jan MacWorld, but not shipping until March. Look at the Yonah timelines for my reasoning.
Ian,
Re: Windows - Schiller said they wouldn't do anything to block it. But I think dual boot is less interesting than a native VirtualPC/SoftWindows/VMWare type situation, which certainly ought to be doable. The only question is can they do better by taking advantage of virtualization.
matt,
Yonah includes vanderpool.
shep,
Do you have a pointer to the PowerPC 6, or do you mean Cell? Everything that I've seen on the PowerPC roadmap: the 975, 976, 980, didn't inspire a lot of confidence. And no matter what the roadmap says, IBM actually has to execute. After all, the roadmap probably said thatt the 970 would hit 3GHz, right?
If I had the choice between a Desktop Linux and OS X, I would (and did) pick OS X. I have an Ubuntu box that is much faster than my Powerbook. But for everything except software development, I prefer to use the Mac. I'm an open source guy, but the Desktop Linux guys have a way to go before they can persuade me to switch.
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Jun 8 00:08:01 2005
It's a Aluminum 15" FW800 @ 1.25GHz.
Wilhelm,
I think we will see Intel boxes announced at Jan MacWorld, but not shipping until March. Look at the Yonah timelines for my reasoning.
Ian,
Re: Windows - Schiller said they wouldn't do anything to block it. But I think dual boot is less interesting than a native VirtualPC/SoftWindows/VMWare type situation, which certainly ought to be doable. The only question is can they do better by taking advantage of virtualization.
matt,
Yonah includes vanderpool.
shep,
Do you have a pointer to the PowerPC 6, or do you mean Cell? Everything that I've seen on the PowerPC roadmap: the 975, 976, 980, didn't inspire a lot of confidence. And no matter what the roadmap says, IBM actually has to execute. After all, the roadmap probably said thatt the 970 would hit 3GHz, right?
If I had the choice between a Desktop Linux and OS X, I would (and did) pick OS X. I have an Ubuntu box that is much faster than my Powerbook. But for everything except software development, I prefer to use the Mac. I'm an open source guy, but the Desktop Linux guys have a way to go before they can persuade me to switch.
Posted by Ted Leung at Wed Jun 8 00:08:01 2005
A presentation slide providing an overview of IBM's 'Power' architecture roadmap has appeared on a Japanese news site, revealing details of the Power 5+ and the Power 6 processors.
According to the slide, the Power 5+ will represent a 90nm shrink of the Power 5 processor, while the all new Power 6 will be shrunk to 65nm.
Power 6 IBM Slide
Click on image to enlarge.
The Power 6 will also include ultra high frequency cores, multiple Level 2 caches, and unspecified 'advanced system functions'.
The G5 processors that power Apple Computer's current Power Mac G5 systems are derived from IBM's POWER 4. Some time next year Apple is expected to announce plans for a Power Mac built around a processor based on the POWER 5.
While the slide does not provide groundbreaking details, it represents a preview of IBM's plans for the Power architecture, and hence, future PowerPC processors.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=516
<html>
<head>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="notepad">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>http</title>
</head>
<body>
http://index1.opensourceservers.com/bluey.jpg<img border="0" src="../bluey.jpg" width="499" height="374">
</body>
</html>
Posted by shep husted at Wed Jun 8 01:50:14 2005
According to the slide, the Power 5+ will represent a 90nm shrink of the Power 5 processor, while the all new Power 6 will be shrunk to 65nm.
Power 6 IBM Slide
Click on image to enlarge.
The Power 6 will also include ultra high frequency cores, multiple Level 2 caches, and unspecified 'advanced system functions'.
The G5 processors that power Apple Computer's current Power Mac G5 systems are derived from IBM's POWER 4. Some time next year Apple is expected to announce plans for a Power Mac built around a processor based on the POWER 5.
While the slide does not provide groundbreaking details, it represents a preview of IBM's plans for the Power architecture, and hence, future PowerPC processors.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=516
<html>
<head>
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="notepad">
<meta name="ProgId" content="FrontPage.Editor.Document">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<title>http</title>
</head>
<body>
http://index1.opensourceservers.com/bluey.jpg<img border="0" src="../bluey.jpg" width="499" height="374">
</body>
</html>
Posted by shep husted at Wed Jun 8 01:50:14 2005
Every one is talking about Chips, Apple will use the same chips as PC’s. What will Apple do to distinguish it’s product from other Dell PC’s using the same chips. What will prevent OS-X from being put on generic PC’s?
The first question one should ask is, will the chip be the same as one available to Dell?
Thinking back to the days of the PowerPC, were the G3, G4 and G5 the same as other chips that IBM manufactured? Answer: No, they all had been created or modified from generic PowerX architecture. The G5, the last, was NOT a Power4 or a Power5 CPU like the ones IBM uses in it’s servers.
Why would you think that the CPU’s from Intel made for the Mactel’s be any different, or rather the same as the CPU’s available for Dell? They won’t be, trust me they will be made to order, and released on Apple’s release schedule, not Intel’s normal method. Do you believe that any discussion with Intel would not include Core designs, release schedule’s and confidentiality?
Intel’s Pentium designs have been to keep up with Microsoft designs. The core, instruction sets and architecture have been compliant with Microsoft’s Windows compatibility in mind. There is no such requirement for a chip designed for Apple. An Intel chip designed FOR Apple does not even have to be compatible with Microsoft. (note this is also the easiest way to prevent OS-X migration (hacks) into the PC world, implement special instruction set extensions, Altivec on Pentium anyone?)
Intel engineer’s are probably dancing in cubicle space with the news that the new chips do not have to be backward compatible with windows. There is freedom in Intel land today. And now you will see innovation in chip design.
And now comes AMD, why not include AMD. The only reason I can think of is AMD is tied to Microsoft designs. And while they have pushed the architecture into 64 Bit instructions better than Intel, it’s still a windows roadmap. AMD is a creative imitator, not a creative innovator.
Think Different
Posted by Branedy at Thu Jun 9 06:57:25 2005
The first question one should ask is, will the chip be the same as one available to Dell?
Thinking back to the days of the PowerPC, were the G3, G4 and G5 the same as other chips that IBM manufactured? Answer: No, they all had been created or modified from generic PowerX architecture. The G5, the last, was NOT a Power4 or a Power5 CPU like the ones IBM uses in it’s servers.
Why would you think that the CPU’s from Intel made for the Mactel’s be any different, or rather the same as the CPU’s available for Dell? They won’t be, trust me they will be made to order, and released on Apple’s release schedule, not Intel’s normal method. Do you believe that any discussion with Intel would not include Core designs, release schedule’s and confidentiality?
Intel’s Pentium designs have been to keep up with Microsoft designs. The core, instruction sets and architecture have been compliant with Microsoft’s Windows compatibility in mind. There is no such requirement for a chip designed for Apple. An Intel chip designed FOR Apple does not even have to be compatible with Microsoft. (note this is also the easiest way to prevent OS-X migration (hacks) into the PC world, implement special instruction set extensions, Altivec on Pentium anyone?)
Intel engineer’s are probably dancing in cubicle space with the news that the new chips do not have to be backward compatible with windows. There is freedom in Intel land today. And now you will see innovation in chip design.
And now comes AMD, why not include AMD. The only reason I can think of is AMD is tied to Microsoft designs. And while they have pushed the architecture into 64 Bit instructions better than Intel, it’s still a windows roadmap. AMD is a creative imitator, not a creative innovator.
Think Different
Posted by Branedy at Thu Jun 9 06:57:25 2005
> Intel engineer’s are probably dancing in cubicle
> space with the news that the new chips do not
> have to be backward compatible with windows.
Baloney. Intel has tried to create non-x86 architectures in the past and as utterly failed in
all of them (i860, Itanium to name two). Intel
is to addicted to x86 to change.
If they were going to build a non-x86 architecture specifically for Apple, then Marklar would have beeen a waste. Both companies starting over with a clean slate and deliver product in a year?
In your dreams.
We're going x86, come hell or high water.
Posted by Allan at Thu Jun 9 21:50:37 2005
> space with the news that the new chips do not
> have to be backward compatible with windows.
Baloney. Intel has tried to create non-x86 architectures in the past and as utterly failed in
all of them (i860, Itanium to name two). Intel
is to addicted to x86 to change.
If they were going to build a non-x86 architecture specifically for Apple, then Marklar would have beeen a waste. Both companies starting over with a clean slate and deliver product in a year?
In your dreams.
We're going x86, come hell or high water.
Posted by Allan at Thu Jun 9 21:50:37 2005
> Intel engineer’s are probably dancing in cubicle
> space with the news that the new chips do not
> have to be backward compatible with windows.
Baloney. Intel has tried to create non-x86 architectures in the past and as utterly failed in
all of them (i860, Itanium to name two). Intel
is to addicted to x86 to change.
If they were going to build a non-x86 architecture specifically for Apple, then Marklar would have beeen a waste. Both companies starting over with a clean slate and deliver product in a year?
In your dreams.
We're going x86, come hell or high water.
Posted by Allan at Thu Jun 9 22:00:07 2005
> space with the news that the new chips do not
> have to be backward compatible with windows.
Baloney. Intel has tried to create non-x86 architectures in the past and as utterly failed in
all of them (i860, Itanium to name two). Intel
is to addicted to x86 to change.
If they were going to build a non-x86 architecture specifically for Apple, then Marklar would have beeen a waste. Both companies starting over with a clean slate and deliver product in a year?
In your dreams.
We're going x86, come hell or high water.
Posted by Allan at Thu Jun 9 22:00:07 2005
Branedy writes: " Every one is talking about Chips, Apple will use the same chips as PC’s. What will Apple do to distinguish it’s product from other Dell PC’s using the same chips."
What distinguished a Mac IIcx from a Sun 3/460 from the original NeXT Cube?
They all used a Motorola 68030 processor, but you couldn't just use each one's OS on any of the others. And each had its own performance characteristics, because they were each designed as a whole for different purposes. There's much more to a computer than just the CPU chip.
Posted by Jon H at Fri Jun 17 18:48:26 2005
What distinguished a Mac IIcx from a Sun 3/460 from the original NeXT Cube?
They all used a Motorola 68030 processor, but you couldn't just use each one's OS on any of the others. And each had its own performance characteristics, because they were each designed as a whole for different purposes. There's much more to a computer than just the CPU chip.
Posted by Jon H at Fri Jun 17 18:48:26 2005
"Consider how tightly coupled the Quartz engine is to hardware acceleration, I can't imagine OS X without a supported video card would be very pleasant."
It shouldn't be too bad. It'd be just like using OS X on an older Mac, whose video hardware isn't able to do Quartz Extreme. Except, instead of being an old, slow Mac, it'd have a really fast processor.
Posted by Jon H at Fri Jun 17 18:49:56 2005
It shouldn't be too bad. It'd be just like using OS X on an older Mac, whose video hardware isn't able to do Quartz Extreme. Except, instead of being an old, slow Mac, it'd have a really fast processor.
Posted by Jon H at Fri Jun 17 18:49:56 2005
You can subscribe to an RSS feed of the comments for this blog:
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:
To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are:
You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => _emphasized text_
<b> => *bold text*
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
Add a comment here:
You can use some HTML tags in the comment text:To insert a URI, just type it -- no need to write an anchor tag.
Allowable html tags are:
<a href>, <em>, <i>, <b>, <blockquote>, <br/>, <p>, <code>, <pre>, <cite>, <sub> and <sup>.You can also use some Wiki style:
URI => [uri title]
<em> => _emphasized text_
<b> => *bold text*
Ordered list => consecutive lines starting spaces and an asterisk
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.sauria.com/blog/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
