Re:Expect a price hike for Linksys equipment
on
Cisco to Acquire Linksys
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
That is, until Cisco raises the price on all the devices sold under its Linksys brand by oh, about 50 percent so that it doesn't compete with Cisco brand devices.
That doesn't make any sense. If Cisco raised the prices by 50%, then the Linksys stuff WOULD compete with Cisco, since they'll now be in similar price categories. How on earth is Cisco going to differentiate Linksys vs Cisco if this occurs? Makes more sense that Linksys continues to be the low price option and Cisco to be the corp. higher price option. Remember, Linksys is in the consumer market, Cisco almost exclusively in the corporate. Linksys would get killed by the Netgears and SMC's of the world with such a price hike.
But what's interesting is that the next xbox is also not expected until a similar time frame. Given its somewhat tepid sales, you would think that M$ would want to make sure they got something out quicker. And if Sony's competitors aren't going to come out with something even more spectacular in the interim, then the 5 year cycle is not as big of a killer as one might think. I don't think cell has to bee that "killer" even after that long. After all, while PS2 was a nice step over PS, it wasen't the world shaking jump that everyone had hoped, but yet it seems to be doing just fine.
Didn't "they" say, like 2 weeks ago, that the playstation 3 will be coming out next year?
Whatever man.
The PS3 will come out when it's good and finished, probably at or around the same time the successor to the xbox/gamecube is released. Until then I'll be quite happy playing my PS2. Enough vapor already.
If you had read the article, the very first paragaphs address the whole "PS3 in 2003" thing. AND they also refer to the timeframe that the next XBox might be released.
Ah, but when you have your gsm phone bluetoothed (or tethered) to your laptop, then you have access in a significantly larger area than any measly WiFi hotpoints. Combine this with vpn, and one can easily extend their corp networks to those in the field. This means that people like real estate agents can get listings away from their offices, your appliance repair person can lookup a part and order it without involving a phone rep (cheaper for the repair company), and myriad other things that my feeble brain can't come up with right now. While private use may be lagging, I think that this type of techology will open up some very interesting possibilities in the business sector.
but you and I can only speculate blindly exactly how that really works out, so there's not much point.
I whole heartedly agree, that's why you won't find a single point of speculation in my post (at least about numbers). Just merely pointing out that Microsoft has a decision to make that is both dependant on their strategic direction and economics. The original poster seemed to imply that it was primarily a strategic decision, I pointed out that it COULD lean more towards a financial one. So in the end, I just brought up a point, and it would actually appear that, in the end, we are in agreement.
Which equals more profit to Microsoft? 20% owners paying OEM Windows licenses or 30% paying full consumer priced Windows licenses?
But you're assuming that VPC itself costs Microsoft nothing. Better to have a slightly lower margin on a product that basically is paid for than to get a slightly higher margin on said product, but then also have how ever much it costs for them to maintain and support VPC itself. Plus, do you really think that 20% of Mac users own VPC? I'm not even assuming that any Mac users switch. Remember, the product costs for any particular version of Windows has long since been paid for and so additional Windows licenses effectively cost them nothing (hence their massive profits).
Hey, I'm not the marketing strategist at MS, but look at the beating they're taking on the XBox...They're losing something like a hundred dollars per unit because they hope it'll pay off someday. Maybe that's what they're hoping with VPC.
Completely different scenerios here. With xbox they're trying to dominate a huge market, not the case with VPC.
Don't be such a sourpuss.
One mans sourpuss is another mans realist;) Didn't think I was being a sourpuss, just trying to make an educated evaluation of the situation. I didn't say that Microsoft WOULD dump VPC, just that if they DID, it wouldn't be shocking, and unlike some other Mac folks, I wouldn't attribute it to be an act of Microsoft predatory monopolistic business tendencies, just sound business.
I don't see why they are being generous to keep it going. I would imagine that significant majority of the copies of VPC that are sold are the ones that are bundled with Windows. Microsoft isn't a hardware company, so to them, this is as good as the person owning an x86 box.
It's called economics, do they make enough money on those copies of WinXXX to justify the expense of keeping VPC in the product mix. Macs are what 4% of the PC market, and out of that 4% how many are running VPC with an actual purchased copy of WinXXX. We're talking a pittance, not even a blip on their radar. Even more the case that a purchase of VPC most likely does not translate into a copy of any other M$ software (Office for instance).
Re:It matters that Microsoft bought it.
on
Virtual PC 6 Review
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I think MS would be crazy to kill it off
Why would you think this? Can't imagine that the numbers of users are huge enough for Microsoft to really care. Microsoft bought them for use on x86 systems to add enterprise level partioning to NT server. They don't care about the Mac version (not primarily anyway). Unfortunately we are at their whim here, if they are feeling generous then we _may_ benefit. If however they decide that it's not worth their time, then they can deprive Mac users of a very useful and hard to replace app.
when software vendors join the likes of RIAA in endless lawsuits
Software vendors already have the BSA to chase down evil doers.
people get around software copyright protection by 'sandboxing' installations on virtual pc.
I don't understand how using virtual pc helps people "get around" copyright protection? If it's an enduser app, then I doubt they care if you are silly enough to try to run two copies of Photoshop in two different VirtualPC sessions (ouch). The only scenerio I can see is if you're running something like IIS where it _may_ have language that says you can run one copy per cpu, so you run 5 copies in 5 virtual pc sessions to get around the CAL limits, but who'ed be insane enough to do this? I would imagine the bigger issue might be running this or VMWare and doing the above. But then again, the software licenses might already preclude this, so it may be a moot issue.
In any case, could you expand on what you had in mind here?
some points are raised, some good and some bad for IBM, specially in the 2nd question
They answered:
We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.
I don't see how this is "bad" for IBM. It shows that they are actively protecting any proprietary interests to the point that they actually have a committee.
but some interchange of ideas could have been happened if a developer of one team talks with one of another.
Again they replied:
Having solved the problem once, our non-Linux peers can help steer us without spelling it out for us, allowing us to still develop solutions that can then be open sourced.
Again, IBM seems to be keenly aware of the cross pollenation issue and actively taking steps to avoid any issues. It reads to me like it's all pro IBM?
Re:Comparing programming to "real world" endeavour
on
Software Craftsmanship
·
· Score: 1
This type of thing happens in the real world ALL THE TIME
I was not saying that every house built is perfect. Obviously there are always logistical issues and problems that always occur. The point I was trying to make (and apparently unsuccessfully) was that the basic foundations of software engineering are quite different than those in the real world. We don't have building codes and a fundatmental understanding that a roof of a certain weight and composition has to be built using certain materials in a particular way to support it.
No, nothing like that would ever happen in real engineering, noooo, software engineering is soooo special
No, not that the errors don't occur, the nature of what is trying to be achieved doesn't happen in most other things that are done (i.e. the fluid nature of the infrastructure we design on). Engineering f* ups will ALWAYS occur, no matter how big or small, I don't see how I was saying that this wasen't the case. Of course any "real world" projects that depend on software also suffer similar issues.
Re:Comparing programming to "real world" endeavour
on
Software Craftsmanship
·
· Score: 1
But it is attitudes like this that will cause you to repeat all of the mistakes already known by other professions.
The dresser is part of a whole. Specifically, it is part of a place of residence.
The trick is finding the ones that do work, and taking advantage of them.
But that's the problem. It's NOT like building a house, only in the crudest sense. Currently we're still banging nails out of scrap metal. We're still lashing hammers out of sticks and rocks. There are lots of screwdrivers out there, but none seem to match the screws that we want, or force us into compromises that we don't think are good.
What I'm getting at is that you can't use the concept of canning jellies into making a good pot roast. Apples and oranges. What makes things like house building and car building possible is that it's foundations are stable. Engine putting power through a piece of steel through a transmission, through another piece(s) of steel to get to the wheels. You can certainly tweek parameters, but the foundations are what they are. Software has yet to get to that point, and until they do, no amount of trying to apply physical world theories are going to make any dent.
It's not like problem partitioning is anything new in software development, we've been doing that for years. The problem is that the problem grows at a rate that is faster than the solutions and those implementing those solutions. Imagine trying to be a house builder if the fundatmental nature of wood kept changing every five years. Or new materials were being adopted at that pace (first we use wood, now we use steel, now we use concrete). So I think that our problems are unique, not that existing theories can't be applied to "help", but something "different" has to happen to "fix".
Comparing programming to "real world" endeavours
on
Software Craftsmanship
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I always find it amusing to read about people who try to compare programming (or software engineering, or whatever) to things such as house building, or even more general like "master craftsman", apprentice, etc. One of the biggest problems facing developers today is the overwhelming complexity of the software being created and the environments they are being created in and the pressures of getting said software done in a particular timeframe.
If one MUST use some real world analogy, then imagine wanting to build a dresser. You come up with the requirements, must have four drawers, have certain dimensions, be made with a certain type of wood and be stained to look a particular way. So you start buying lumber. But wait, no one carries just the right type of lumber you want, so you run out and cut your own tree down and make the lumber yourself. You decide to dove tail the drawers, but the dove tail rig you have doesn't quite fit, so you kinda work around it and get "good enough" dove tails. Uh oh, you never checked with your wife on those dimensions, she wants something 6 inches wider, gotta take those drawers apart and make wider ones, do you cut more trees down, or do you patch an add on to the existing pieces? That last one put you behind schedule, so now you don't have time to actually check your work completely as you go and your carpenter friend Bob has a baseball game to go to, so he can't help with that tricky scroll work you need to do, guess you'll just go online and just copy what someone else has done. etc, etc.
Not to mention that few software projects have such simple requirements. This dresser has to actuall fold the clothes for you, let you know how many socks are present, pick your wardrobe for the day AND it has to look pretty, interface nicely (dooh, made those knobs too small to grab), etc, etc.
And lets not forget one of the biggest project killers, you decide to build this dresser with four of your friends, each doing a different part. And dang it if those drawer openings are too small. And the trim around the edges are 1/4" smaller than the trim used for the mirror, and those pilot holes are 3/8" but your using 5/16" screws.
You get the picture. Nothing like this happens in the real world, software is a completely different beast and to contrain it by using realworld analogies might push a few books, but it's not making software engineering or the software being produced any better.
I think both issues are financial. They're always trying to squeeze more content (calls/data) into the available spectrum. They surely wouldn't do anything that would cause a decrease in the data carrying capacity of their networks. Currently cell phone use is exploding DESPITE the two drawbacks you mention. For the audio quality, they have 0 incentive to increase the audio quality. There have been a gazillion studies done by AT&T alone about just how much then can compress and what frequency range makes for usuable quality in phone calls and they're quite happy with the quality being delivered to their customers. What it would take I think is for someone (say Sprint) to make some radical marketing move and provide those features. If enough people jumped ship then the others would have to follow. This would be an expensive move however (unless they have a lot of underutilized bandwidth).
Hell, and I got one a month before that with a whopping 10 foot range, with sound quality that's worse than AM radio
I can only assume that the quality of the phones vary greatly? My last two have been Uniden (900mhz and 900mhz dss) and they've worked fantastic, esp the dss model. I'd move up to a newer 2.4ghz, mainly for the smaller form factor and caller id in the handset, but I'm afraid of what it might do to my wifi signal.
Initially, yes. However, it lasted this long because Intel worked very hard to keep it alive. If the x86 trailed, for example, the PowerPC-based Macintosh by 50% in performance, many things may be very different.
I was replying to the original poster that said that it lasted on it's "good design". But the reason that it's performance has lead is because Intel has been able to spend beaucoup bucks on R&D. And they've been able to do that because of the relative monopoly that was created by virtue of their selection as the cpu for the PC. Note that Microsoft benefitted similarly.
The 6502 and Z-80 are not "footnotes". They deserve prominent spots in CPU history marking the beginning of personal computing and affordable gaming consoles.
Well footnotes in the sense that they have no presence in todays computing (other than retro). They had their (relatively short) time and are now gone. If IBM hadn't chosen the x86, they'd probably be in the same boat, maybe even of lesser stature than the 6502 esp. If you remember "back in the day", pc's and clones were pretty much the ONLY computers to use the x86. 68K had the high end and 6502/Z80 held the low end.
So maybe footnote is a bit too strong a word, didn't mean to raise your hackles;) I got my start on a 6502 so I definitely have a strong attachment to it.
For some reason, my cell phone works virtually anywhere in the world, for days on a charge, and is usually crystal clear.
Right, but keep in mind the fact that the price of your cell phone is subsidized, it has millions of dollars of hardware supporting it (just TRY to buy a base station!). I have a 900mhz digital spread spectrum phone that works exremely well out to the garage (opposite end of the house, around 80'). It's around 8 years old so it still uses nimh batteries and it's fairly large, which are it's primary weakness's. So I would disagree with your statement, though I haven't tried any of the newer phones and it absolutely would not surprise me to hear that they've taken a nose dive in quality.
It's lasted, and dominated, because in many ways it's a good design.
No, it lasted and dominated because IBM happened to choose it to be the cpu for their PC. Had that not happened, x86 would be at best a footnote, along with the 65XX, Z80, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
That is, until Cisco raises the price on all the devices sold under its Linksys brand by oh, about 50 percent so that it doesn't compete with Cisco brand devices.
That doesn't make any sense. If Cisco raised the prices by 50%, then the Linksys stuff WOULD compete with Cisco, since they'll now be in similar price categories. How on earth is Cisco going to differentiate Linksys vs Cisco if this occurs? Makes more sense that Linksys continues to be the low price option and Cisco to be the corp. higher price option. Remember, Linksys is in the consumer market, Cisco almost exclusively in the corporate. Linksys would get killed by the Netgears and SMC's of the world with such a price hike.
But what's interesting is that the next xbox is also not expected until a similar time frame. Given its somewhat tepid sales, you would think that M$ would want to make sure they got something out quicker. And if Sony's competitors aren't going to come out with something even more spectacular in the interim, then the 5 year cycle is not as big of a killer as one might think. I don't think cell has to bee that "killer" even after that long. After all, while PS2 was a nice step over PS, it wasen't the world shaking jump that everyone had hoped, but yet it seems to be doing just fine.
As other people have said the PS2 unit itself might start making money for sony as production costs fall
Repeat after me, Sony sells PS2 hardware for a profit already. Have for a while now.
I look forward to the day I can play a photorealistic games rendered in real time.
As long as the games don't suck. I look forward to the day when focus comes back to gameplay and not pretty pictures.
I've got to imagine that as the technology in the PS2 gets cheaper, they'll actually start making money per unit instead of losing it
Sony has long since been making a profit on PS2 sales. But, yes, all the more reason for them not to be in a big rush with PS3.
Didn't "they" say, like 2 weeks ago, that the playstation 3 will be coming out next year? Whatever man. The PS3 will come out when it's good and finished, probably at or around the same time the successor to the xbox/gamecube is released. Until then I'll be quite happy playing my PS2. Enough vapor already.
If you had read the article, the very first paragaphs address the whole "PS3 in 2003" thing. AND they also refer to the timeframe that the next XBox might be released.
Wow, even in war the most powerful weapon is the /. effect!
Ah, but when you have your gsm phone bluetoothed (or tethered) to your laptop, then you have access in a significantly larger area than any measly WiFi hotpoints. Combine this with vpn, and one can easily extend their corp networks to those in the field. This means that people like real estate agents can get listings away from their offices, your appliance repair person can lookup a part and order it without involving a phone rep (cheaper for the repair company), and myriad other things that my feeble brain can't come up with right now. While private use may be lagging, I think that this type of techology will open up some very interesting possibilities in the business sector.
You obviously missed the fact that it's a small "g" and not a big "G" ;)
but you and I can only speculate blindly exactly how that really works out, so there's not much point.
I whole heartedly agree, that's why you won't find a single point of speculation in my post (at least about numbers). Just merely pointing out that Microsoft has a decision to make that is both dependant on their strategic direction and economics. The original poster seemed to imply that it was primarily a strategic decision, I pointed out that it COULD lean more towards a financial one. So in the end, I just brought up a point, and it would actually appear that, in the end, we are in agreement.
Which equals more profit to Microsoft? 20% owners paying OEM Windows licenses or 30% paying full consumer priced Windows licenses?
But you're assuming that VPC itself costs Microsoft nothing. Better to have a slightly lower margin on a product that basically is paid for than to get a slightly higher margin on said product, but then also have how ever much it costs for them to maintain and support VPC itself. Plus, do you really think that 20% of Mac users own VPC? I'm not even assuming that any Mac users switch. Remember, the product costs for any particular version of Windows has long since been paid for and so additional Windows licenses effectively cost them nothing (hence their massive profits).
Hey, I'm not the marketing strategist at MS, but look at the beating they're taking on the XBox...They're losing something like a hundred dollars per unit because they hope it'll pay off someday. Maybe that's what they're hoping with VPC.
;) Didn't think I was being a sourpuss, just trying to make an educated evaluation of the situation. I didn't say that Microsoft WOULD dump VPC, just that if they DID, it wouldn't be shocking, and unlike some other Mac folks, I wouldn't attribute it to be an act of Microsoft predatory monopolistic business tendencies, just sound business.
Completely different scenerios here. With xbox they're trying to dominate a huge market, not the case with VPC.
Don't be such a sourpuss.
One mans sourpuss is another mans realist
I don't see why they are being generous to keep it going. I would imagine that significant majority of the copies of VPC that are sold are the ones that are bundled with Windows. Microsoft isn't a hardware company, so to them, this is as good as the person owning an x86 box.
It's called economics, do they make enough money on those copies of WinXXX to justify the expense of keeping VPC in the product mix. Macs are what 4% of the PC market, and out of that 4% how many are running VPC with an actual purchased copy of WinXXX. We're talking a pittance, not even a blip on their radar. Even more the case that a purchase of VPC most likely does not translate into a copy of any other M$ software (Office for instance).
I think MS would be crazy to kill it off
Why would you think this? Can't imagine that the numbers of users are huge enough for Microsoft to really care. Microsoft bought them for use on x86 systems to add enterprise level partioning to NT server. They don't care about the Mac version (not primarily anyway). Unfortunately we are at their whim here, if they are feeling generous then we _may_ benefit. If however they decide that it's not worth their time, then they can deprive Mac users of a very useful and hard to replace app.
when software vendors join the likes of RIAA in endless lawsuits
Software vendors already have the BSA to chase down evil doers.
people get around software copyright protection by 'sandboxing' installations on virtual pc.
I don't understand how using virtual pc helps people "get around" copyright protection? If it's an enduser app, then I doubt they care if you are silly enough to try to run two copies of Photoshop in two different VirtualPC sessions (ouch). The only scenerio I can see is if you're running something like IIS where it _may_ have language that says you can run one copy per cpu, so you run 5 copies in 5 virtual pc sessions to get around the CAL limits, but who'ed be insane enough to do this? I would imagine the bigger issue might be running this or VMWare and doing the above. But then again, the software licenses might already preclude this, so it may be a moot issue.
In any case, could you expand on what you had in mind here?
some points are raised, some good and some bad for IBM, specially in the 2nd question
They answered:
We are definitely not allowed to cut and paste proprietary code into any open source projects (or vice versa!). There is an IBM committee who can and do approve the release of IBM proprietary or patented technology, like RCU.
I don't see how this is "bad" for IBM. It shows that they are actively protecting any proprietary interests to the point that they actually have a committee.
but some interchange of ideas could have been happened if a developer of one team talks with one of another.
Again they replied:
Having solved the problem once, our non-Linux peers can help steer us without spelling it out for us, allowing us to still develop solutions that can then be open sourced.
Again, IBM seems to be keenly aware of the cross pollenation issue and actively taking steps to avoid any issues. It reads to me like it's all pro IBM?
This type of thing happens in the real world ALL THE TIME
I was not saying that every house built is perfect. Obviously there are always logistical issues and problems that always occur. The point I was trying to make (and apparently unsuccessfully) was that the basic foundations of software engineering are quite different than those in the real world. We don't have building codes and a fundatmental understanding that a roof of a certain weight and composition has to be built using certain materials in a particular way to support it.
No, nothing like that would ever happen in real engineering, noooo, software engineering is soooo special
No, not that the errors don't occur, the nature of what is trying to be achieved doesn't happen in most other things that are done (i.e. the fluid nature of the infrastructure we design on). Engineering f* ups will ALWAYS occur, no matter how big or small, I don't see how I was saying that this wasen't the case. Of course any "real world" projects that depend on software also suffer similar issues.
But it is attitudes like this that will cause you to repeat all of the mistakes already known by other professions.
The dresser is part of a whole. Specifically, it is part of a place of residence.
The trick is finding the ones that do work, and taking advantage of them.
But that's the problem. It's NOT like building a house, only in the crudest sense. Currently we're still banging nails out of scrap metal. We're still lashing hammers out of sticks and rocks. There are lots of screwdrivers out there, but none seem to match the screws that we want, or force us into compromises that we don't think are good.
What I'm getting at is that you can't use the concept of canning jellies into making a good pot roast. Apples and oranges. What makes things like house building and car building possible is that it's foundations are stable. Engine putting power through a piece of steel through a transmission, through another piece(s) of steel to get to the wheels. You can certainly tweek parameters, but the foundations are what they are. Software has yet to get to that point, and until they do, no amount of trying to apply physical world theories are going to make any dent.
It's not like problem partitioning is anything new in software development, we've been doing that for years. The problem is that the problem grows at a rate that is faster than the solutions and those implementing those solutions. Imagine trying to be a house builder if the fundatmental nature of wood kept changing every five years. Or new materials were being adopted at that pace (first we use wood, now we use steel, now we use concrete). So I think that our problems are unique, not that existing theories can't be applied to "help", but something "different" has to happen to "fix".
I always find it amusing to read about people who try to compare programming (or software engineering, or whatever) to things such as house building, or even more general like "master craftsman", apprentice, etc. One of the biggest problems facing developers today is the overwhelming complexity of the software being created and the environments they are being created in and the pressures of getting said software done in a particular timeframe.
If one MUST use some real world analogy, then imagine wanting to build a dresser. You come up with the requirements, must have four drawers, have certain dimensions, be made with a certain type of wood and be stained to look a particular way. So you start buying lumber. But wait, no one carries just the right type of lumber you want, so you run out and cut your own tree down and make the lumber yourself. You decide to dove tail the drawers, but the dove tail rig you have doesn't quite fit, so you kinda work around it and get "good enough" dove tails. Uh oh, you never checked with your wife on those dimensions, she wants something 6 inches wider, gotta take those drawers apart and make wider ones, do you cut more trees down, or do you patch an add on to the existing pieces? That last one put you behind schedule, so now you don't have time to actually check your work completely as you go and your carpenter friend Bob has a baseball game to go to, so he can't help with that tricky scroll work you need to do, guess you'll just go online and just copy what someone else has done. etc, etc.
Not to mention that few software projects have such simple requirements. This dresser has to actuall fold the clothes for you, let you know how many socks are present, pick your wardrobe for the day AND it has to look pretty, interface nicely (dooh, made those knobs too small to grab), etc, etc.
And lets not forget one of the biggest project killers, you decide to build this dresser with four of your friends, each doing a different part. And dang it if those drawer openings are too small. And the trim around the edges are 1/4" smaller than the trim used for the mirror, and those pilot holes are 3/8" but your using 5/16" screws.
You get the picture. Nothing like this happens in the real world, software is a completely different beast and to contrain it by using realworld analogies might push a few books, but it's not making software engineering or the software being produced any better.
I think both issues are financial. They're always trying to squeeze more content (calls/data) into the available spectrum. They surely wouldn't do anything that would cause a decrease in the data carrying capacity of their networks. Currently cell phone use is exploding DESPITE the two drawbacks you mention. For the audio quality, they have 0 incentive to increase the audio quality. There have been a gazillion studies done by AT&T alone about just how much then can compress and what frequency range makes for usuable quality in phone calls and they're quite happy with the quality being delivered to their customers. What it would take I think is for someone (say Sprint) to make some radical marketing move and provide those features. If enough people jumped ship then the others would have to follow. This would be an expensive move however (unless they have a lot of underutilized bandwidth).
Hell, and I got one a month before that with a whopping 10 foot range, with sound quality that's worse than AM radio
I can only assume that the quality of the phones vary greatly? My last two have been Uniden (900mhz and 900mhz dss) and they've worked fantastic, esp the dss model. I'd move up to a newer 2.4ghz, mainly for the smaller form factor and caller id in the handset, but I'm afraid of what it might do to my wifi signal.
Did not have a supervisor mode (pre 386)
You mean pre 286 right. The 286 did have a "protected mode", but it was certainly lame (at least the way you "switched" into and out of it).
Initially, yes. However, it lasted this long because Intel worked very hard to keep it alive. If the x86 trailed, for example, the PowerPC-based Macintosh by 50% in performance, many things may be very different.
;) I got my start on a 6502 so I definitely have a strong attachment to it.
I was replying to the original poster that said that it lasted on it's "good design". But the reason that it's performance has lead is because Intel has been able to spend beaucoup bucks on R&D. And they've been able to do that because of the relative monopoly that was created by virtue of their selection as the cpu for the PC. Note that Microsoft benefitted similarly.
The 6502 and Z-80 are not "footnotes". They deserve prominent spots in CPU history marking the beginning of personal computing and affordable gaming consoles.
Well footnotes in the sense that they have no presence in todays computing (other than retro). They had their (relatively short) time and are now gone. If IBM hadn't chosen the x86, they'd probably be in the same boat, maybe even of lesser stature than the 6502 esp. If you remember "back in the day", pc's and clones were pretty much the ONLY computers to use the x86. 68K had the high end and 6502/Z80 held the low end.
So maybe footnote is a bit too strong a word, didn't mean to raise your hackles
For some reason, my cell phone works virtually anywhere in the world, for days on a charge, and is usually crystal clear.
Right, but keep in mind the fact that the price of your cell phone is subsidized, it has millions of dollars of hardware supporting it (just TRY to buy a base station!). I have a 900mhz digital spread spectrum phone that works exremely well out to the garage (opposite end of the house, around 80'). It's around 8 years old so it still uses nimh batteries and it's fairly large, which are it's primary weakness's. So I would disagree with your statement, though I haven't tried any of the newer phones and it absolutely would not surprise me to hear that they've taken a nose dive in quality.
It's lasted, and dominated, because in many ways it's a good design.
No, it lasted and dominated because IBM happened to choose it to be the cpu for their PC. Had that not happened, x86 would be at best a footnote, along with the 65XX, Z80, etc.