imac - $ to £ this sucks..

**AtW** · 4 March 2007, 13:25

Welcome to Apple - the monopolist supplier of Apple hardware that is now based on commodity Intel processors: at least they had brains to move over to superior x86 architecture.

A good programmer can create excellent things on bugger all hardware - if you need fast processor then maybe your programming style is just inefficient, so you might be better off buying some low-end model in order to learn how to program well: if you do design then remember that Leonardo da Vinchi did not have a computer, yet his work is still amazing.

HTH

**bogeyman** · 4 March 2007, 13:43

I wouldn't buy an iMac simply because of the built in screen. I wish they'd come out with sort of headless iMac or a souped-up mac Mini (even if the form factor was bit bigger).

Originally posted by AtW

at least they had brains to move over to superior x86 architecture.

I presume that was a joke. x86 a superior architecture to PPC?

The Intel chips may be superior to PPCs in some ways, but never in terms of a clean architecture.

**AtW** · 4 March 2007, 13:51

x86 is superior because it survived the test of time and far more successful in terms of usage than PowerPC ever was and ever will be for that matter - it is superior because it survived and took dominance, not because some purists think that some design time decisions were bad - some sure were, but overall advantages far outweighted disadvantages.

**bogeyman** · 4 March 2007, 13:53

Originally posted by AtW

x86 is superior because it survived the test of time and far more successful in terms of usage than PowerPC ever was and ever will be for that matter - it is superior because it survived and took dominance, not because some purists think that some design time decisions were bad - some sure were, but overall advantages far outweighted disadvantages.

Maybe, but you said superior architecture.

In what way is x86 superior in terms of CPU architecture?

**AtW** · 4 March 2007, 13:59

It's superior because it survived and PowerPC is as good as dead: think about it in terms of evolution - the test of time, not tactical design decisions.

Say in terms of design Itanic has got superior than x86 archictecture - however it is as good as dead, despire this supposed "superiority": it just shows that technical people have next to zero big picture view and understanding how things work out in a long run: x86 is a success, and PowerPC (and previous Motorola stuff) is a failure (in terms of powering Personal Computers), it's as simple as this and the fact that Apple moved to x86 just illustrates this point.

**Addanc** · 4 March 2007, 14:08

The x86 architecture became dominant because it was used in the original IBM PC. Had the 68K got to market at the same time or earlier we would now be praising the 68K. I agree with BM PowerPC is a superior architecture (having worked on x86, 68K, PowerPC).

**AtW** · 4 March 2007, 14:18

Ask yourself - if it is superior why Apple switched to inferior one? Surely they would know better?

There were lots of creatures on this planet with advanced superior features, yet the only ones that survived over millions of years are crocks, turtles and some more: fairly simple creatures when you compare to their more advanced species.

**Addanc** · 4 March 2007, 14:34

cost!

**AtW** · 4 March 2007, 14:37

Originally posted by Addanc

cost!

And low cost is not a superior advantage of architecture?

And what about backwards compatibility (without software emulation)?

And the fact that x86 has been advanced much faster than PowerPC or any other architecture for that matter?

And a lot bigger software library written for x86 is not an advantage?

It might be possiblet to argue of degree of the above advantages of x86 that made most difference, but the simple fact is this: x86 has proven to be a superior architecture because it survived and others are dieing out.

imac - $ to £ this sucks..