>> Well, this is just plain wrong. The registered version is far faster. And
>> with a P5-133 costing $350 (yes, you can buy a motherboard and P5-133 for
>> $500) the "exectutor" runs 680x0 apps as fast as a $1000 PowerMac.
>Well, I don't know about that, but I do know you can buy a PowerMac with 486
>DOS card for GBP1300 - and probably cheaper in the US. If I was buying, I'd
>get a PMac w/ 486 card, maybe a P5 card.
But that is significantly more expensive than the running of an
emulator on the P5-133, and is less wise than having two completely
separate computers which would cost close to the same amount and run
far more reliably.
>Two more points:
>for $$/computing power, PowerMacs are far faster than P5s, which is not
>surprising because of the RISC technology. I mean, who wants two 486s
>soldered back to back?? At least it keeps the room warm in winter. :)
RISC technology is not the be-all and end-all of chip design. In fact
it is, IMHO, a great leap backward. Have the chip less capable but
faster so that it can do 4 simple instructions at the speed of 1
complex instruction? This reminds me of people who bought 20 mhz 80286
machines instead of 16 mhz 386 machines. It doesn't always work.
Witness the Pentium Pro. Second, P5's are not the slower chip, PPc's
are, based on all tests I've read.
>To make a P5 costs TWICE as much as making a PowerPC chip. Again, the
>technology accounts for this.
I don't care how much it costs them to make it. I care what I have to
pay for it. P5 costs me less and I can choose my software from a far
wider variety pack. Show me one Roof Truss Design program on the Mac.
I can show you 10 on the PC and I have personally used at least 5 of
them, plus several that have been discontinued because they weren't
>> Apple is in deep deep trouble - face it. The Amiga of the '90s.
Well, he's wrong this time. Amiga is still out there, doing great
business, but not where we're used to looking. They just announced
that they're going to be building a PPc reference platform.
>Bull. Go tell that to 20 million happy users. They shifted more units last
>quarter than ever before, and over a million PowerMacs. OK, they made a $70
>million loss which is bad news but that was a forecasting problem (they
>overestimated demand, which cancelled out the underestimation of earlier last
>year when they had backorders totalling 1 _billion_ US$). Cf with a $122
>million _profit_ for the same quarter the previous year, I don't think they're
>struggling. Spindler's gone, so they _shouldn't_ make the same mistakes
>again. They've licensed the MacOS and now well respected companies such as
>UMAX (btw, they make a MEAN colour scanner, fantastic) are making
>Mac-compatibles - so we should see even more real computers around.
Irrelevant. A lot of people owned ATARI videogames and were very
happy. Where's Atari today? Buggy whips were a big business at one
time. When was the last time you saw one. As far as licensing the OS,
well lots of people copied IBM's OS by buying copies from Microsoft.
The end result was not increased strength for IBM. As far as being
real computers, keep it decent. Slinging of mud means that you'd
better get teflon clothes. Frankly Apple doesn't know how to build
computers. What they know is how to build a user friendly OS and make
it integral to the hardware. How many OS's can you run on your Mac? I
have three on my 80x86, and could have many other's. OS/2, DOS, Win
3.1, Win95, Unix (in many variations), Pick OS
>> Softwindows is horrible and requires 16megs of RAM.
>Hm, just like Win95? ;-)
I run it on 12 megs and know many who run it on 8 megs.
It's getting to be a hobbit with me