-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Stewart Stremler wrote:
Don't be cheap, and pay for the technology that actually does some research and innovation. Value given for value received and all that. I've been quite satisfied with my 64-bit SPARC for many years now, and haven't been able to out-type a machine in a lot longer than that.
[snip
Sure, it's a classic case of VHS defeating BETA and I would have preferred it if the Sparc or Alpha or PPC chip had become the mass-produced commercial success that x86 has been such that we would all have them on our desktops. These cpu's were nowhere to be found back when it mattered.
Funny how you left out a much more important competitor: MC68000.
And had they existed back then we would probably be having the same debate now because they would now appear to be quite poorly designed with lots of features kludged on to keep them in the game just like x86 appears now.
The 68000 /did/ exist then. And IMO, it was and still is superior to anything x86ish.
But when they did finally come along they played a very expensive proprietary game which ensured they never hit production volumes that make them a good deal when it comes to price/performance. "Value given for value received" may be more complicated than you think when you take into account economies of scale. How much you pay for your Sparc is directly related to how many of them are produced despite the fact that the performance of the cpu remains the same.
Which all goes to prove that the "Build a better mouse trap..." saying is little more than a truism.
But I wouldn't count the Power chip and its baby brother PPC out yet. With IBM quietly looking to make that CPU more affordable, better supported and thus more mainstream, we may yet see the x86 meet its just demise.
-- Best Regards, David "Did I mention what a piece of crap the x86 is?" Allen.
-- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
