🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3vhe3g$fi2@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, donrawlins@aol.com says...

>Early on the PPC consortium and its long winded advocates touted "order 
of
>magnitude" class advantages that the PPC machines would enjoy over the
>dated CISC architecture.  Intel didn't listen to that crap.  Rather, they
>introduced a line of Pentium machines that beat the 601 outright in most
>integer and application tests.  Now over a year later the "next
>generation" 604 chip only delivers an average 20% better performance than
>the aging Pentium for native applications.  The PPC601 was a flop.  And a
>big reason is poor performance.  
>
>Worse yet, the PPC consortium and its long winded advocates touted the
>"fact" that "MacinToy" PPC machines would run x86 software in emulation
>faster than Intel machines could run it natively.  Today, all we can do 
is
>laugh at those fools who in their ignorant arrogance made such silly
>claims.  Perhaps had there been some honesty early on the world would be
>more accepting of the PowerPC computers.
>

I agree completely. The PPC has to be a major embarrassment to the 
IBM/MOTO/APPLE consortium. With IBM having more PH.D.'s then many
brand name companies have total employees, and the added talent of
Motorola and Apple, there is no excuse for a "state of the art" next
generation design being only marginally faster than what they themselves
have been calling an aging piece of crap. Either the x86 line isn't 
nearly as bad as they have been claiming, or their designers are 
incompentent. You can't have it both ways. After all the hype the PPC is
a major disappointment.

Bob R.