Re: Why still using Apple II?

["Sean Fahey" <a2fan@hotmail.com>]

"bob" <bob@home.net> wrote in message
egbba15mspdjtp62h6sb3fdp4pr0v3c0u8@4ax.com">news:egbba15mspdjtp62h6sb3fdp4pr0v3c0u8@4ax.com...

> It was bound to happen.  Do you honestly think IBM is willing to
> invest more money in newer PPC designs for a machine that has a
> microscopic installed base ?

Certainly - several of IBM's server offerings are PPC based, and they're
ramping up processor production for game consoles. The PPC architecture is
used in far more applications than just Macintosh.

Apple couldn't get enough commitements on units and future development on
PPC because IBM is going to concentrate on the relatively static, high
volume processor production. Less risk, less R&D, good cash flow.

It's also the right time for Apple to make the switch to Intel. Zealots
aside, the PPC isn't what makes Apple "special". It's the functionality, the
brand, the design style and philosophy. As long as OS X "just works" on x86
as it did on PPC, then Apple will have a winner. By using Intel, more people
will be inclined to switch, especially if they can dual boot or emulate (ie
wean) themselves off of Windows and all the insecurity that comes with it.
It's clever that Apple's next OS X is codenamed "Leopard" - because it's
truly a leopard that will have changed it's spots.

If anyone should be worried, it's Microsoft. They've got a real competitor
in OS X on the desktop now - Linux didn't cut it. It took Apple to make *nix
on the desktop a widespread viable reality.