[no subject]

Intel made a similar decision when it rolled
out the Itanium 64-bit processor.  AMD, on the
other hand, took the other road with the Opteron
and Athlon 64 processors.  Apple could have
continued with the Apple II in a similar fashion,
building on existing technology, but it didn't.

Today, one has many choices.  I can't see why
folks want to bash one OS over another.  Win95?
Mac folks seem to love to curse it but actually,
it was one of the best OSes I've used.  So fast
even with a K6 series processor.  WinXP and
MacOS X?  Very polished.  GS/OS?  PC folks
and Mac folks who bash it don't know it at all.
GS/OS was an amazing OS, squeezing all that
performance and functionality out of the IIGS
hardware.

I've never liked Macs but that's because I made
the decision not to support Apple for their non-
support of Apple II users.  The G5 Macs are
a perfect example of convergence.  A UNIX
based OS (MacOS X) running on a platform
that has an IBM processor and AMD technology
(the PCI-X tunnel is an AMD part and, of course,
the HyperTransport technology).

The next round is going to be at the 64-bit level.
Ace's Hardware did a comparison in 2003 of
the chips.  The Opteron is ahead of the pack
at the moment.  The thread should really read:
Apple/IBM versus Intel versus AMD versus Sun.