Newsgroup: it.comp.macintosh
Titolo: Ars Technica

"There have been a few recent PowerPC announcements that have caused the
Mac Faithful to wonder anew about The Switch and the 'real' reasons
behind it. First, there was the 970FX announcement, which clearly showed
that IBM is capable of putting out a 970 processor that compares quite
well with the Pentium M in performance/watt. And then there's the 970MP,
which Apple has used to make a monster of a quad-processor 64-bit RISC
workstation. For even the most diehard Jobs fans, both of these product
releases, especially when set against Intel's current performance/watt
woes, raise serious questions about the public case that Teh Steve made
for The Switch [...]"
P.A. Semi's major PowerPC announcement, and looking back at The Switch
10/26/2005 4:06:22 PM, by Hannibal
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051026-5486.html
///
Power.org - P.A. Semi processor:
http://www.power.org/news/articles/pasemi_processor/

 for The Switch
E` evidente che ArsTechnica non legge icm.  :°D
In particolare dell'articolo citerei anche:
"Let's take a moment to step back and look at how the terrain has
changed since The Switch was announced:
1.      The 970FX was announced as a perfectly capable laptop chip.
2.      The 970MP was announced as a solid, 64-bit RISC dual-core
         server/workstation chip.
3.      Intel is taking a performance/watt beating everywhere except for
         the Pentium M.
4.      Intel has just shaken up their server lineup for 2007.
5.      PA Semi is set for a major performance/watt breakthrough in 2007
         with a dual-core, 64-bit, Altivec-enabled processor that looks
         perfect for the Mac line.
It's now quite clear to anyone who's not blinded by the RDF that things
aren't nearly so bad on the PowerPC side as the famous "the PowerPC
roadmap will fail to deliver by an astounding margin when compared to
Intel's offerings" Jobsnote bar graph slide made them out to be.
[Cut]
... they didn't jump ship for performance or performance/watt reasons.
They jumped ship because they no longer care about making leading-edge
computer hardware. They also don't care about PC market share, or any of
that other G3-era Mac Faithful malarkey. From now on, merely "good
enough" is good enough for the Mac line, and the real innovation will
come in the form of post-PC gadgets and entertainment-oriented,
techno-cool doohickeys."
Un Maramao che IMHO l'unica sensata risposta allo switch è il DRM. :P
-- 
I've always been more concerned with users. )\._.,--....,'``.
Programmers do their work but once, while  /,   _.. \   _\  (`._._,
users are saddled with it ever thereafter. `_.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

 Un Maramao che IMHO l'unica sensata risposta allo switch è il DRM.
No, la Gestione dei Diritti dei Contenuti Digitali (Digital Rights
Management - DRM), non c'entra proprio nulla:
[
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_12670_12684,00.html
]
"We have filed a 48-page, detailed Complaint* in federal district court.
Because, as our Complaint explains exhaustively, Intel's actions include:
* _Forcing major customers to accept exclusive deals_
* Withholding rebates and marketing subsidies as a means of punishing
customers who buy more than prescribed quantities of processors from AMD
* Threatening retaliation against customers doing business with AMD
* Establishing quotas keeping retailers from selling the computers they want
* Forcing PC makers to boycott AMD product launches
For most competitive situations, this is just business. But from a
monopolist, this is illegal."
///
[
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm#laws
]
"Many consumers have never heard of antitrust laws, but when these laws
are effectively and responsibly enforced, they can save consumers
millions and even billions of dollars a year in illegal overcharges.
Most states have antitrust laws, and so does the federal government.
Essentially, these laws prohibit business practices that unreasonably
deprive consumers of the benefits of competition, resulting in higher
prices for inferior products and services."
DOJ/Antitrust - Other Antitrust Sites Worldwide:
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/contact/otheratr.htm