Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 5th Nov 2012 23:40 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 541509
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
Doing so with their own CPU designs, with the PowerPC chips they were developing together with IBM, would have cost quite a lot of money and the cost would have spread over far less processors than Intel ships regularly each quarter. Going to Intel was, long term, a very good move for Apple and a pragmatic one to boot.
More: going with the PPC was likely itself a mistake - Apple CEO from the time thinks it was one of his biggest ones: http://www.macworld.co.uk/mac/news/?newsid=7045
(and Mac OS Classic was running on x86 at the time... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_project )