Linked by Nicholas Blachford on Wed 9th Jul 2003 16:43 UTC
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y This article started life when I was asked to write a comparison of x86 and PowerPC CPUs for work. We produce PowerPC based systems and are often asked why we use PowerPC CPUs instead of x86 so a comparison is rather useful. While I have had an interest in CPUs for quite some time but I have never explored this issue in any detail so writing the document proved an interesting exercise. I thought my conclusions would be of interest to OSNews readers so I've done more research and written this new, rather more detailed article. This article is concerned with the technical differences between the families not the market differences.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Macintosh Propoganda
by mochz R on Fri 11th Jul 2003 06:50 UTC

"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.