|
|
||
|
||
|
|
Quicklinks: · Power Macs · 'Books · Early Macs · Week's Best Deals · Best Buys · OS Downloads |
This letter was written in response to news reports that the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, was considering phasing out Macs in favor of Windows computers. This letter should be appearing soon in Imprint, the university newspaper.
Any move by the University of Waterloo away from the Macintosh and toward the Intel-Windows platform cannot be considered a long term solution. The facts speak for themselves.
1) The Macintosh operating system has been evolving since 1984. Resources permitting (memory, drive size, etc.), a 1986 Mac Plus can run many applications in use today.
2) The Macintosh OS is already a 32-bit operating system, which is exactly what Windows 95 hopes to be, but fails at because of the required backward compatibility with 16-bit Windows software. The Mac OS has always been a 32-bit OS.
3) Apple has already made the transition from a sophisticated CISC technology to the more powerful, more efficient RISC technology - all this without loss of compatibility with older software and hardware.
4) Today's Power Mac is prepared to run tomorrow's OS, whether the next version of the Mac OS, Apple's version of NeXTstep, Linux, or BeOS.
5) With programs such as SoftWindows and Virtual PC, Mac owners have the option of running both Macintosh and DOS/Windows software. For those seeking the most performance, there are also PCI cards which provide a full Pentium II processor.
6) The Mac OS has a history of being easier to use, as does Macintosh hardware. Despite the best intentions of Microsoft, Intel, Compaq, and others, the competition has not yet caught up.
7) Microsoft has a history of obsoleting otherwise viable computers via OS upgrades. For all intents and purposes, Windows 3 abandoned the 80286 and Windows 95 runs so poorly on an 80386 as to make using it a futile exercise. We can anticipate Windows 98 and Windows NT 5.0 leaving the 80486 CPU behind.
8) Intel has made its intentions to move from the 80X86 chip family to a new VLIW RISC chip code-named Merced. This 64-bit CPU is intended to ship in 1999 and replace the Pentium family, obsoleting millions of computers.
9) Apple has been building Power Macs with 64-bit* PowerPC processors for several years - without obsoleting old equipment or disrupting the ability to run legacy applications.
The Apple Macintosh has been and remains the best long term computing solution. They are the only computers that can run the Mac OS, versions of Unix, and Windows, something no Intel-based computer does.
Other Macintosh advantages include ease of use, ease of expansion, lower support costs, and ease of networking.
It would be very shortsighted of the University of Waterloo to abandon Macintosh support - unless it wants to create an information systems department with more staff and a larger budget.
Based on the underlying architecture and the 64-bit data bus, I believe the PowerPC can legitimately be called a 64-bit CPU, even in current 32-bit implementations. Others maintain that the use of 32-bit registers and 32-bit memory space justify calling it a 32-bit CPU.
I think both positions are legitimate for historical reasons.
The simple fact is that the Intel CISC architecture is at the end of the road, forced to use increasingly powerful technology to support an increasingly outdated architecture. This is one reason Intel will be introducing the 64-bit Merced chip in 1999 - to overcome the 16-bit and 32-bit legacy of the 80X86 architecture.
The PowerPC architecture is at the start of the road. When it becomes feasible to move personal computers to the 64-bit level, migration to full 64-bit implementations of the PowerPC design will be relatively painless. We won't be moving to an entirely new architecture, as Wintel users will be forced to do.
Did you find this page helpful or enjoyable? If so, click here to support Low End Mac.
Macintosh, a long term solutionDan Knight
|
ï Mac adult ed
classes Make a DonationSupport LEM
Amazon.com |