Bryan Parkoff wrote:
<acctforjunk@yahoo.com> wrote in message 1118114148.094148.206490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com">news:1118114148.094148.206490@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...Hi, I used to have an Apple II+, then a IIe. It was my first computer. I liked it at first, but noticed how nice the PCs were getting, with faster processors and nicer graphics. This was in the late 80s/early 90s.I can say that Apple II is great for hobbyist like us. It is very sad that Steve Worniak chose not to purchase Intel 8080 CPU for Apple II family because he could not be able to afford expensive CPU so he chose 6502 CPU. I assume that Apple Computer, Inc made a bigger mistake to choose 68000 CPU and PowerPC CPU for Macintosh. You may be very surprised that Apple Computer, Inc has decided to choose Intel CPU for Macintosh this year and next year. It requires a big change that affects many software and Mac OSX which it means that all programmers have to rewrite from scratch. If they already have C/C++ source code, they may be able to recompile to work with Intel CPU.
*snip* Very sad?For performance reasons, the 65xx *was* more powerful then the 8080. ( now the 8085, that would be debatable, except it was not out yet when the decision had to be made. ) AND it was cheaper.. So that mere motals could have one..
The reason Jobs mistakenly has switched to ix86 recently is due to cost ( which is backwards to what it used to be ), and that the PPC is not moving into low power units fast enough to make him happy. Not for perforance issues.
The performance of the PPC is still higher then the ix86, as is shown by the fact that IBM is putting them into all the big hardware ( where power consumption isnt as big of a deal ).. And it has a long way to go before it hits the
celing..If Jobs had done this long ago, Apple would be 'just another clone', and we woudlnt even be here talking about them today, in the present tense..