From Newsgroup: comp.misc
Scott Dorsey <
kludge@panix.com> wrote:
Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
Apple have changed architecture three times now, HP and Sun at least
twice each. Microsoft support two architectures at present and have >supported more in the past.
In the case of HP and Sun, customers often used the architecture change as
a reason to move to a competing product. If we have to recompile the code anyway, we might as well recompile it for a faster machine from a different company.
Microsoft has over the years tried very hard to promote Windows on a variety of architectures from Alpha to ARM and in spite of spending a lot of money they have never really been able to get customers off of the x86.
Apple is weird... Apple is selling the UI more than anything else, and they have actually changed architectures four times.... 68k->ppc->x86->m4 but
each time they have made sure they had backwards compatibility for a few versions of the code on the old architecture. People want Apple because
of the UI and they will put up with a lot of grief to have it.
--scott
Price aside: this person wants Apple because it is quality kit with
decent interoperability within its own ecosystem. It just works.
--
^-^. Sn!pe, PTB, FIBS My pet rock Gordon just is.
--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2