Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 25th Oct 2009 12:51 UTC
Permalink for comment 391153
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-01-18
Luposian++
I don't know what was the Apple plan when they switched, but afterall, I don't think performance was the argument when people bought Apple computers in the past. So, I don't think it was wise to switch to x86 in the long-term. On the other side, Apple users are usually blind about that. They don't care if what is under the wood is Intel x86, PowerPC or whatever.
Didn't see your post before, but look at my post below called "Price of the switch to x86".
I usually take the "developer approach" rather than an "user approach". So, I don't run Windows, nor Mac OS X on PC, nor Linux. BUT, that said, yes, I agree with you. You don't even "feel" Apple computers are different today. I have some old Macs too, from the days of the Motorola 68K, like Quadras, to the days of PowerMacs, but don't want a new Mac Wintel.
Edited 2009-10-26 14:55 UTC