Replies

Show me the smallest amount of evidence that IBM, the world's largest multinational computer corporation, wasn't capable of finding what it wanted. Bill offered something, and they were happy with the terms, period. Bill would not have gotten his non-exclusive deal if IBM didn't want to allow it.

It isn't my burden to show that IBM couldn't find alternative OSes. *You* are the one who argued that IBM could have found an alternative to CP/M. So prove it. Show even the slightest amount of proof that IBM knew about alternatives. Because that's what you're trying to argue. IBM went to Gates to find out what it should use. Gates recommended CP/M. Clearly, IBM did not have this information -- and certainly wouldn't have it without Gates's recommendation.

Neck and neck in most places, behind in some, ahead on others.

Look, you lied. You said: "most applications ran faster under it due to the better memory handling offered by the parent OS." These numbers prove that that is false. Now, you're trying to spin those numbers because they aren't supported by what you were trying to sell earlier. And here's another thing: These numbers don't encompass the impact of running both Classic and standard OS X applications simultaneously. There is additional overhead in running Classic applications that wouldn't be present if these were standard native OS X applications.

Jobs ditched because IBM wasn't supporting the platform. The PPC had a great architecture with great capabilities and lots of room to grow, but that doesn't mean anything if the vendor won't continue R&D and constantly has supply problems.

In other words, contrary to your opinion earlier, the Mac as it currently exists ain't the "best platform". Anyone buying one is essentially buying a deprecated piece of hardware that is going into mothballs before it even leaves the showroom floor.

I still stand by my criticism of Intel's P4-based architecture, as well as Intel's design for dual-core (Intel recently admitted it was badly slapped together). Both the PPC and AMD are far superior in every way.

The advantage of having multiple suppliers (Intel and AMD) is that competition can reign; in other words, it brings out the best.

It isn't my burden to show that IBM couldn't find alternative OSes.

Yes it is.

Look, you lied.

Nope. What I just found wasn't as favorable to Classic as the one I was originally referring to (that was run on a 512MB box, kicking the VM performance advantage more). To paraphrase, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and benchmarks.

don't encompass the impact of running both Classic and standard OS X applications simultaneously.

Running multiple apps hurts the performance of any one app? Wow Bush, what a new concept!

In other words, contrary to your opinion earlier, the Mac as it currently exists ain't the "best platform"

I guess you're now talking about the hardware it sits on instead of the OS. Make up your mind. Current PPC chips are definitely good enough into the near future (and upgrades are planned before the MacTels hit), but they don't have a long-term future.

The advantage of having multiple suppliers (Intel and AMD) is that competition can reign; in other words, it brings out the best.

Gotta love it. We win in the end, no matter what platform we're on.