Linked by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 9th Jul 2003 16:43 UTC
Permalink for comment
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 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



"RISC may be technically better but it is held in a niche by market forces which prefer the lower cost and plentiful software for x86. Market forces do not work on technical grounds and rarely chose the best solution."
"Rarely choose the best solution..."
Just because RISC is more elegant doesn't mean it's the best solution. The economy operates on a performance/price basis. That's why SUVs sell in America. Granted, I'm not an SUV fan, but they do "perform" for soccer moms. If the inner workings are less "elegant," it doesn't make it inferior if it is cheaper to produce and, in the end and actual results, it performs.
Why would you buy a Macintosh with less available software, much more expensive hardware, and "debatable" but definately still slower speed, when you can get a cheap, fast, and easy to use (tons of software) PC. It just doesn't make any sense. Apple really needs to start licensing again if they really want Macs to flourish. Cost is a major prohibitive factor in any product, so Apple must start licensing again.