An article that completely ignores the state of the market and appeals to those that believe that anything is better than submitting to the Dark Side(tm).
Why is it when someone writes an article that doesn't put Microsoft/Intel in the limelight, it's automatically turned into the 'Darkside' issue?! But of course if the shoe was on the other foot, let's say Apple/IBM, this issue wouldn't apply because of whatever reason!?
Do Genesi (add in Eyetech and Hyperion) really expect anyone to believe that they selected the PPC architecture for a niche platform because it is better designed?
Do you think they would have picked the x86 architecture for a niche platform if it was better designed? If you're not anything Microsoft/Windows, then Intel/AMD is a dead market for you (unless you're Linux, which debunks the whole 'corporate' market theory)!
The Amiga succeeded because it offered great value for a cheap price.
If Amiga was so cheap back in the day, then 85-90% of the world would be using it instead of Windows (or DOS in that era)!
Does it really matter when you have more registers or less CPU cycles when there is no software to run on it and a manufacturer that appears disinterested in the technology?
It does matter to those who take technology for more than marketing hoopla and what's the flavor of the week. Besides, if no software ran (whatever your talking about) then millions (if not billions) would companies waste to spend to innovate/market it!
And before anyone screams 'PC zealot' or brings up the need to maintain compatibility with 10 year old hardware and software please dial in to 2003. The x86 may not be the best solution but it is the gorilla in the market.
I see that there is a need for freedom of choice on the computing landscape and if we just had Intel/Microsoft to look forward to, we (the technophiles) would have a boring, dull and tasteless computing experience.
