Why I Like Apple Less And Less.

[the empty calorie 0]

I wouldn't go on saying that....I've actually been able to exchange hardware between my PPC macs and my x86 machines. THink about it....Macs have AGP, and PCI slots, maybe even PCI express on the new revised powermacs with dual dual-core G5 processors..I sure wouldn't mind swiping one of those, but the X86 mac is going to be badass, as is usual of Apple hardware, and it will for sure make any dell look anemic comparing features between a PowerMac and a Dell, or whatever PC. Runing OS X on anything but a Mac would kind of cheapen the experience for me. I'm running it on a Pentium IV computer. It's cool, but it still doesn't do it for me. Next computer I buy will be an Apple.

[Jguy101 0]

I understand why Apple moved from IBM and Freecell (Motorola) for their chips, but it HAD to be Intel...I'm sorry, but I must say that I think that Intel is the very spawn of Satan himself. They should have gone with AMD! Or maybe another company...I wonder how Cruesoe is doing.

[ruben1405241511 0]

lol @ spawn of satan - intelI don't like the idea of Apple cooperating with these bastards either, but several people with knowledge agree that it will make everything better.I especially hope that porting programs/games will be easier because of this switch, that would really make me happy. Or at least you can have a Win and a Mac partition on one nice Mac-Computer. Even though I would hate wasting that space on Windows, I can say that I would do it, for the games and maybe testing websites, etc. too.I actually think, that it is better like that, because I think an Operating System should be what the name says: The system, that operates. Disregard the machine.@xboxrulz: I understand that objection, but except you until now EVERYBODY said that Intel just makes the better and more effective processors. I know that windows machines sound like airplanes taking off and that Macs are white doves sailing in comparison, but don't you agree that Apple will probably/hopefully find a way to keep these beloved properties?

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

could be true, but as most propbably know that the x86 processor, for Windows or not is still far less "awesome" than the PPC (IBM), that's also why Microsoft swapped their Intel processors for the IBM PPC triple core.xboxrulz

[unimatrix 0]

Here, from my understanding, are the reasons why Apple is moving away from PowerPC to the X86 and specifically Intel. The PPC is a great chip, but IBM is fundamentally shifting its business away from hardware development and production to a consulting business that also does technology R&D. Frankly I believe we will see the day in the next decade when IBM no longer builds hardware. Apple had been frustrated with constant production problems from IBM/Motorola in the G4 series. They both let Apple down consitantly in Quality and speed not being able to deliver either as promised. IBM was really wanting to get out of the PC business altogether. Now I think there are some personality conflicts between Jobs and some of the senior management of IBM there too.During the last few years, the Graphics industry (which traditionally had be dominated by Apple) was loosing ground as more products were tuned for the x86 chips. The fact that IBM could not deliever a G5 for the laptop was the final straw. We are going to a moblie processing user base where Laptops have now outsold desktops. So why Intel? From a business perspective, I would choose Intel too. Why? They can meet the production demands for Apple without any problems. AMD currently is selling every chip they make. I remember reading about 6 months ago in a legal article about the latest AMD anti-trust suit against INTEL that AMD did not have more than a 15% marketshare because they couldn't build any more chips. Even if 30% of the market wanted AMD, AMD could not meet the demand. Their plants were running at capacity and they were selling every unit they were producing. Simply put: Intel can build more chips than AMD. Given that situation, I would have chosen Intel as well. But the real reason was the mobile chips intel is producing and have in the pipeline. For Laptops battery demands life tops performance, but the newer intel chips offer a good combination of both. This is why Intel began stressing performance per watt. As more and more people purchase notebooks rather than desktops, this is the feature that is going to be in the most demand. AMD might be producing the gamers paradise right now, but if a majority of users switch to laptops and will be on the go, as our soecitiy increaseingly becomes more mobile, then battery life is going to be the number 1 feature that businessess and home users will look for in the product. Just remember that for every gamer, 20 times more computers are sold to businesses and regular home users. Basically, if I was forced to buy stock in AMD or INTEL, I'd choose intel.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

AMD's processors are more energy efficient than Intels anyways...xboxrulz