Quote:
Originally Posted by
snoopy 
I thought the point of Universal software was to write applications once and have them run well with either processor.:
The bulk of code can be written to compile for either PPC or Intel. But if you want to optimize low-level logic so that it runs at optimal speed, you need to code for a specific instruction set (meaning chip). eg: Photoshop filters, video codecs, etc...
Something like TextEdit doesn't require such. But most of the key Pro apps that drive the Mac use in design & production require such custom coding to run at the same speeds as their Windows counterparts.
By example, consider how long it took Adobe to release the CS3 universal binary apps. And how important that release was to both Apple and Macintel sales. ie: How many people were media pros were waiting to buy a Macintel when Photoshop et alia were universal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
snoopy
Chip sets yes, but I think Apple makes their own motherboards. No? By the way, according to one post I read, Apple could use Intel board by replacing the BIOS chip with Apple's propriety chip. What do you think?
As I understand it, Apple used all proprietary chips in the PPC days (aside from the CPU). But at this point, there is no reason for Apple to do so, unless their proprietary tech is better than the vendor options.
Key being, economy of scale. Mac hardware has always been expensive, due to the large R&D cost per Mac sold. With Mac now using Intel chips, they can use standard PC hardware components that are manufactured in the hundreds of millions, not millions (Apple alone).
That said, I gather Apple still uses their own WiFi chips in their laptops. My point is simply that, aside from the cases, Apple's hardware costs could now rival Dell's.
