Todd Walton wrote: > On 5/23/05, DJA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > o It's not an x86. > > As for "It's not an x86", well, can't argue with that.
Yes you can! Black box it. You can't tell the difference between x86 and PPC. It is a meaningless distinction. Things like battery life and effective speed can be explained by lots of things other than merely CPU. It only becomes important if you are doing systems level work. If you are doing that, then you are not using it as a general purpose desktop, but as a developmental platform. I understand the general aversion to x86, but I will let you think about this: The CPU that gives the best bang for the buck is x86 based. PPC systems are muchmore expensive than a comparable x86 based system. Now, this may be because no one makes generic PPC based systems. Only really Apple makes them, and they control exactly what goes on the board. This may explain why PPC appears to be a better system. I doubt that there is much in the PPC that makes it inherently better than x86. It may have some features that are preferable, as the SPARC has features that are preferable. Mass productio of x86 drives down the cost of them. I'd like a non-x86 system that could run a Free operating system. An iBook or PowerBook would look really attractive, if it was actually supported under Linux (the AirPort issue Gregory mentions, and the firewire issues). All things considered, my replacement laptop will likely be x86 based. -john -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
