Originally Posted by a_greer
MS has been working with Intel on multithreading and maximising CPU usage since Apple was playing with those dinky G4 peices of shit (I speak as a former G4 owner, they sucked compared to the Intel boxes of the day, which is why Apple switched.)
Actually, the common belief is that Apple switched for several reasons, but not the one you listed:
1) IBMs inability to scale the G5 into a mobile chip.
2) IBMs failure to break the 3Ghz barrier.
3) The power requirements (and subsequently, heat dissipation) requirements of the G5 were too extreme.
4) Motorola discontinuing its own production of PPC chips.
These are not G4s we're talking about, but G5s. At the end of Apple's PPC era, all non-mobile machines (iMac, PowerMac and Xserve) were running with G5 processors, with the exception of the Mac Mini.
They aren't slack or underpowered processors. In fact, all three major game platform players (XBox 360, PS3, Wii) run a PowerPC processor, with both the Cell (PS3) and Xenon (Xbox) being fairly heavily based on the PowerPC 970 (aka, G5).
In short, Apple switched because they couldn't deliver a viable mobile/high-efficiency platform if they remained on the PPC track. It's not because the G4 was underpowered. In fact, when it was introduced, the G4 was the first consumer processor to break the gigaflop barrier (the then-classification for a "supercomputer"), and export policies had to be changed to allow its sale outside of the US.