<strong>Moving to PPC from 68k was so massively different to moving from PPC to x86, because PPC was a whole new architecture with a lot of life and potential left in it. x86 on the other hand is about to slowly dissappear from the market within the net 5 to 10 years.G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what Intel thought a number of years ago, too, when they spend a rather large amount of money on a RISC architecture that never took hold in the market. Entrenchment is a powerful force that is often underestimated.
Also, with AMD's IA64 implementation, there's quite a bit of life left in that old nasty architecture. It will be *very* interesting to see how Intel manages to try to switch the industry to Itanium while a viable 64 bit extension to the x86 architecture is commercially available.
<strong>Also, with AMD's IA64 implementation, there's quite a bit of life left in that old nasty architecture. It will be *very* interesting to see how Intel manages to try to switch the industry to Itanium while a viable 64 bit extension to the x86 architecture is commercially available.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well considering that Intel has a top secret (well, as top secret as Intel seems to get -- their ship isn't as tight as Apple's) internal project to build an AMD IA64 compatible PIV derivative, I'd say they're hedging their bets. Good thing too 'cuz in my view the Itanium is first and foremost an attempt to build a processor architecture that is unclonable due to its sheer complexity!!
I don't know where you're going with this whole x86 thing, Moki... it sounds to me like you're saying Apple will have a line of x86 based machines running "osX86". Developers could support both with a bit of work, thanks to the bundle system, but it seems like this would just confuse the Mac market greatly. I suppose the threat of this "oxX86" running on non-Apple hardware (at least in a widespread way) could be controlled via licensing... but ewww it just leaves me feeling... dirty!
<strong>Moki, you would spend the money on a X86-Apple Box, buy a new version of OS X86, and new apps (assuming that software writers would support two ports for X86)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it runs Mac OS X, and the hardware is stylish, trouble-free, and state of the art, I really don't care what processor is running it. I don't think I'm alone...
I also think that Apple is likely looking at an x86 box in addition to PPC boxen, and most of the people getting the x86 boxes will be first time buyers -- so the new apps isn't really much of an issue. They'd have to get new apps anyway.
Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.).
Having an OS that can run on more than one platform, but ignoring that potential is not the wisest move...
"If it runs Mac OS X, and the hardware is stylish, trouble-free, and state of the art, I really don't care what processor is running it. I don't think I'm alone..."
Don't care. Fast. Powerful. Seductive.
"I also think that Apple is likely looking at an x86 box in addition to PPC boxen,"
Yes. Could do. Bundle 'their' X86 box with 'X'..? 'X' gets introduced to people who wouldn't buy an Apple anyway so Apple loses nothing but gets the 'other' 95% to at least try and look at 'X' and its suite of iapps etc.
Apple's biggest problem, in their own words, many people don't even consider Apple's. If they did. They might, given a 50/50 choice...buy...Apple's instead of Oranges !
"...and most of the people getting the x86 boxes will be first time buyers -- so the new apps isn't really much of an issue. They'd have to get new apps anyway."
Hmmm. Okay.
"Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.)."
Yeah. A trojan horse.
So...Apple sells 'x86' boxes to people who want choice. Many people don't run Apple. I'm sure many 'need' to run Windows...but would like the choice of using Apple for multimedia... If it's there for them...they might try it...and get hooked.
Like the iPod for PC?
See...look....Apple's cool...and now they're for the rest of us.
If you apply the mentality of the iPod to the OS X (doesn't matter if OS X runs on x86 hardware...) Apple can sell 'cool' looking PCs...if they feel they can make a profit doing so... People can look at 'X'. Open source community for 'x86' might program for it. In time...the key apps may come.
Now? Next year? No.
But in several years time when the dust has settled on 'X' and the current PPC cpu lag? Yes.
With IBM at the helm of a trickle down Power series of PPC processors. Apple would be THE performance choice.
Selling an x86 box would become just another revenue stream.
Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just like OS/2.
What I remember with OS/2 was that it was a more advanced OS than windows, ran widows software on Intel hardware, was backed by IBM who tried to take on microsoft (a microsoft that was much smaller than the microsoft of today and the one of today has a much more mature and better OS than the one of yesterday). I also heard that IBM spent 4 billion trying to get market share.
Selling an x86 box would become just another revenue stream.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a very good point. Supposing that apple builds an x86 box, the only problem I would see is people (hackers) could wip together a firmware upgrade that allows the installation of WinXP on the Apple box, making an almost moot point for apple to release an x86 box. However, conversly, what's to stop PC hackers from making a firmware upgrade (essentially an entire ROM) that allows OS X x86 to be installed on x type of motherboard?
I think it should be done from more of a linux type of view; release OS X x86 that can be installed under virtually any computer with the x86 chipsets. I doubt Apple would be successful making thier own x86 box, unless it was dual boot OS X PPC and OS X x86 for the same price.
<strong>Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.).
Having an OS that can run on more than one platform, but ignoring that potential is not the wisest move...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That makes no sense.
As has been mentioned, OS/2 did exactly this (Warp for PPC was never released) and MS made damn sure it failed. BeOS did exactly this too, MS made damn sure that failed. MS have made it plain they want to kill off Linux as well.
So Apple releases a x86 box which can duel boot. MS swiftly puts pressure on any OEM and developer who might consider supporting it. They adjust Windows so that it can't be installed on it which ensures corporates don't buy it. Apple loses. We lose.
Jobs knows there is nothing to be gained by competing against MS on MS turf. Options doesn't mean wasting time on x86, it means getting better producers of PPC.
Mac on x86 would destroy Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Do you really think that Intel or AMD would scoff at the millions of processors Apple would purchase from them yearly (especially AMD)?
Do you think that the majority of Mac owners would care what CPU is in their machine, as long as it was a slick Apple production through and through, running Mac OS X?
Why would simply using another ISA kill Apple? I'd wager very few people who use Macs do so because it has a PPC in it. They use Macs because they like the Mac OS, they like Apple's bundle apps, they don't like/want Microsoft Windows, and because they like sleek, well designed hardware.
For the majority of people, switching the processor in a Mac would make zero difference. Sure, it is a little more work for developers, but if Apple sells the boxes, trust me, people will gladly fix any minor endian issues, and check the "x86 ISA" checkbox to generate a fat binary.
MetroWerks already has CodeWarrior compiling for the PPC, 68K, and x86. gcc, the compiler used by Apple for Project Builder, and the majority of the OS, compiles on every processor under the sun. All Apple needs to do is port Carbon over to x86 -- Cocoa already runs on x86, and Carbon is now cleanly divorced enough from machine specifics that porting it wouldn't be that hard, either.
So, to recap:
1) The technical issues are not insurmountable by any means. Darwin is already running on x86, the dev. tools already compile for x86. Carbon is no longer so platform-specific.
2) Apple wouldn't switch to x86, they'd offer both PPC and x86 boxes. Buy whichever one you like. If you hate x86, buy a PPC machine. If you want an x86 box so you can also run Windows, or get it through corporate purchasing, do that.
3) Apple would retain all of the advantages they have now in terms of excellent hardware, well designed, stylish machines, bundled apps -- which processor it runs on, well, who cares?
4) Because it wouldn't be a switch, but an additional offering, developers would have time to make their products work on either platform (which really wouldn't be that hard -- once it is carbonized, making it run on another ISA isn't hard)
<strong>Jobs knows there is nothing to be gained by competing against MS on MS turf. Options doesn't mean wasting time on x86, it means getting better producers of PPC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Options could very well mean *both* actually. New kick-ass PPC processor boxes, and x86 boxes as well...
<strong>Options could very well mean *both* actually. New kick-ass PPC processor boxes, and x86 boxes as well...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just can't help but think that this would confuse the heck out of the consumer for the first while though -- they buy an x86 Mac but have to figure out which software runs on it. Downloaded executables get twice as big, or they run on one or the other... or they are treated as yet another platform. Software developers have to test on both kinds of machines, and in both byte orders... not to mention having to ensure that file & network access is correctly byte-ordered.
The endian issue could be avoided, I suppose. AMD could add a big-endian mode to their processors, if there isn't already one. I can't remember if any of the x86 chips have ever had that kind of mode switch available (PPC does, or did at some stage).
I wonder if Apple would build machines that could run Windows? It wouldn't really hurt Apple if people bought their machines and ran Windows on them -- it seems like a silly thing to do anyhow. More worrisome would be the possibility of getting MacOSX running on a generic low-cost no-name brand PC. That could serious eat into Apple's hardware market.
What makes you think that Microsoft is even competing with Apple these days?
Sorry kids, that battle's over and Microsoft won big time. There seems to be pervasive feeling that it's still 1993, with Apple even capable of being seen as a competitor to Wintel. Well, with a marketshare of 2.5% or so, that simply isn't the case.
As I see it, Apple is still most useful to Microsoft in proving it's not a monopoly. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft are quite happy with the switch campaign, as it gives a highly visible pretence of their being full competition in the pc market, whilst being utterly unthreatening to Microsoft's sales. Face it, selling Windows XP is not Microsoft's main business anymore. Selling the whole package, of Server, SQL Server, Exchange, Commerce Server, Site Server and the workstation clients numbering in hundreds or thousands to go on such a backroom infrastructure is, and that simply isn't a market that Apple will ever compete in.
If you acept this argument, then you also accept that OsX on x86 is not unfeasible. Os/2 isn't a great comparison for two reasons, firstly the computing landscape was still open enough that everything was up for grabs, and secondly, IBM had the size and clients that meant it could have been a real competitor to Microsoft in a way that Apple never will be again. I don't see much of a campaign by Microsoft to kill Linux...
<strong>I wonder if Apple would build machines that could run Windows? It wouldn't really hurt Apple if people bought their machines and ran Windows on them -- it seems like a silly thing to do anyhow. More worrisome would be the possibility of getting MacOSX running on a generic low-cost no-name brand PC. That could serious eat into Apple's hardware market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
not really an issue -- Apple could easily include something in the hardware that would be required for OS X for x86 to boot.
Name one OS that has any kind of decent marketshare and/or application support. The one OS you'd name would be Windows, and to a much lesser degree, the Mac OS.
Outside of the server market, Linux isn't even on the map, and there are no other OS's of note with regards to marketshare and/or application support.
The point being that asking what cross plaform OS has decent marketshare and/or application support is a red herring. Outside of Windows, and marginally the Mac OS, there ARE no other operating systems that meet these criterea, cross platform or not.
<strong>Mac OS X on X86 processors is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.
Its so bad that I can't even believe people here actually think it will happen.
It would be the end of Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have any reasons for stating this? why would it be such a bad idea? Do people really care what processor drives their machine, as long as it is fast?
Options could very well mean *both* actually. New kick-ass PPC processor boxes, and x86 boxes as well...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suspect if Apple did offer both x86 and PowerPC, they would sell many more x86 boxes because they would be faster than the PowerPC boxes and they would be able to run windows. What I think would happen next is that Apple would then stop selling PowerPC boxes due to low sales volume. People who recently bought the PowerPC macs would be up crap's river.
If Apple's going to X86, I hope they do it soon. I need to get rid of this 8600 but am not willing to plunk down 3 grand on a new PowerPC machine that Apple may stop producing in a year or so.
Comments
<strong>Moving to PPC from 68k was so massively different to moving from PPC to x86, because PPC was a whole new architecture with a lot of life and potential left in it. x86 on the other hand is about to slowly dissappear from the market within the net 5 to 10 years.G-News</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's what Intel thought a number of years ago, too, when they spend a rather large amount of money on a RISC architecture that never took hold in the market. Entrenchment is a powerful force that is often underestimated.
Also, with AMD's IA64 implementation, there's quite a bit of life left in that old nasty architecture. It will be *very* interesting to see how Intel manages to try to switch the industry to Itanium while a viable 64 bit extension to the x86 architecture is commercially available.
<strong>Also, with AMD's IA64 implementation, there's quite a bit of life left in that old nasty architecture. It will be *very* interesting to see how Intel manages to try to switch the industry to Itanium while a viable 64 bit extension to the x86 architecture is commercially available.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well considering that Intel has a top secret (well, as top secret as Intel seems to get -- their ship isn't as tight as Apple's) internal project to build an AMD IA64 compatible PIV derivative, I'd say they're hedging their bets. Good thing too 'cuz in my view the Itanium is first and foremost an attempt to build a processor architecture that is unclonable due to its sheer complexity!!
I don't know where you're going with this whole x86 thing, Moki... it sounds to me like you're saying Apple will have a line of x86 based machines running "osX86". Developers could support both with a bit of work, thanks to the bundle system, but it seems like this would just confuse the Mac market greatly. I suppose the threat of this "oxX86" running on non-Apple hardware (at least in a widespread way) could be controlled via licensing... but ewww it just leaves me feeling... dirty!
<strong>Moki, you would spend the money on a X86-Apple Box, buy a new version of OS X86, and new apps (assuming that software writers would support two ports for X86)?</strong><hr></blockquote>
If it runs Mac OS X, and the hardware is stylish, trouble-free, and state of the art, I really don't care what processor is running it. I don't think I'm alone...
I also think that Apple is likely looking at an x86 box in addition to PPC boxen, and most of the people getting the x86 boxes will be first time buyers -- so the new apps isn't really much of an issue. They'd have to get new apps anyway.
Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.).
Having an OS that can run on more than one platform, but ignoring that potential is not the wisest move...
-DisgruntledQS733Owner
Don't care. Fast. Powerful. Seductive.
"I also think that Apple is likely looking at an x86 box in addition to PPC boxen,"
Yes.
Apple's biggest problem, in their own words, many people don't even consider Apple's. If they did. They might, given a 50/50 choice...buy...Apple's instead of Oranges
"...and most of the people getting the x86 boxes will be first time buyers -- so the new apps isn't really much of an issue. They'd have to get new apps anyway."
Hmmm. Okay.
"Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.)."
Yeah. A trojan horse.
So...Apple sells 'x86' boxes to people who want choice. Many people don't run Apple. I'm sure many 'need' to run Windows...but would like the choice of using Apple for multimedia... If it's there for them...they might try it...and get hooked.
Like the iPod for PC?
See...look....Apple's cool...and now they're for the rest of us.
If you apply the mentality of the iPod to the OS X (doesn't matter if OS X runs on x86 hardware...) Apple can sell 'cool' looking PCs...if they feel they can make a profit doing so... People can look at 'X'. Open source community for 'x86' might program for it. In time...the key apps may come.
Now? Next year? No.
But in several years time when the dust has settled on 'X' and the current PPC cpu lag? Yes.
With IBM at the helm of a trickle down Power series of PPC processors. Apple would be THE performance choice.
Selling an x86 box would become just another revenue stream.
Lemon Bon Bon
<strong>
Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just like OS/2.
What I remember with OS/2 was that it was a more advanced OS than windows, ran widows software on Intel hardware, was backed by IBM who tried to take on microsoft (a microsoft that was much smaller than the microsoft of today and the one of today has a much more mature and better OS than the one of yesterday). I also heard that IBM spent 4 billion trying to get market share.
<strong>
Selling an x86 box would become just another revenue stream.
Lemon Bon Bon</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a very good point. Supposing that apple builds an x86 box, the only problem I would see is people (hackers) could wip together a firmware upgrade that allows the installation of WinXP on the Apple box, making an almost moot point for apple to release an x86 box. However, conversly, what's to stop PC hackers from making a firmware upgrade (essentially an entire ROM) that allows OS X x86 to be installed on x type of motherboard?
I think it should be done from more of a linux type of view; release OS X x86 that can be installed under virtually any computer with the x86 chipsets. I doubt Apple would be successful making thier own x86 box, unless it was dual boot OS X PPC and OS X x86 for the same price.
<strong>Presumably, the OS would come bundled with the machine, so that's not an issue either. If Apple does something like this, I think it would be primarily to get their machines on purchasing lists in corporate amercia where it would be impossible to otherwise (some companies *require* that the machine be a certain processor, or be capable of running Windows, etc.).
Having an OS that can run on more than one platform, but ignoring that potential is not the wisest move...</strong><hr></blockquote>
That makes no sense.
As has been mentioned, OS/2 did exactly this (Warp for PPC was never released) and MS made damn sure it failed. BeOS did exactly this too, MS made damn sure that failed. MS have made it plain they want to kill off Linux as well.
So Apple releases a x86 box which can duel boot. MS swiftly puts pressure on any OEM and developer who might consider supporting it. They adjust Windows so that it can't be installed on it which ensures corporates don't buy it. Apple loses. We lose.
Jobs knows there is nothing to be gained by competing against MS on MS turf. Options doesn't mean wasting time on x86, it means getting better producers of PPC.
Mac on x86 would destroy Apple.
<strong>
Mac on x86 would destroy Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why? Do you really think that Intel or AMD would scoff at the millions of processors Apple would purchase from them yearly (especially AMD)?
Do you think that the majority of Mac owners would care what CPU is in their machine, as long as it was a slick Apple production through and through, running Mac OS X?
Why would simply using another ISA kill Apple? I'd wager very few people who use Macs do so because it has a PPC in it. They use Macs because they like the Mac OS, they like Apple's bundle apps, they don't like/want Microsoft Windows, and because they like sleek, well designed hardware.
For the majority of people, switching the processor in a Mac would make zero difference. Sure, it is a little more work for developers, but if Apple sells the boxes, trust me, people will gladly fix any minor endian issues, and check the "x86 ISA" checkbox to generate a fat binary.
MetroWerks already has CodeWarrior compiling for the PPC, 68K, and x86. gcc, the compiler used by Apple for Project Builder, and the majority of the OS, compiles on every processor under the sun. All Apple needs to do is port Carbon over to x86 -- Cocoa already runs on x86, and Carbon is now cleanly divorced enough from machine specifics that porting it wouldn't be that hard, either.
So, to recap:
1) The technical issues are not insurmountable by any means. Darwin is already running on x86, the dev. tools already compile for x86. Carbon is no longer so platform-specific.
2) Apple wouldn't switch to x86, they'd offer both PPC and x86 boxes. Buy whichever one you like. If you hate x86, buy a PPC machine. If you want an x86 box so you can also run Windows, or get it through corporate purchasing, do that.
3) Apple would retain all of the advantages they have now in terms of excellent hardware, well designed, stylish machines, bundled apps -- which processor it runs on, well, who cares?
4) Because it wouldn't be a switch, but an additional offering, developers would have time to make their products work on either platform (which really wouldn't be that hard -- once it is carbonized, making it run on another ISA isn't hard)
<strong>Jobs knows there is nothing to be gained by competing against MS on MS turf. Options doesn't mean wasting time on x86, it means getting better producers of PPC.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Options could very well mean *both* actually. New kick-ass PPC processor boxes, and x86 boxes as well...
[ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: G-News ]</p>
<strong>Options could very well mean *both* actually. New kick-ass PPC processor boxes, and x86 boxes as well...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I just can't help but think that this would confuse the heck out of the consumer for the first while though -- they buy an x86 Mac but have to figure out which software runs on it. Downloaded executables get twice as big, or they run on one or the other... or they are treated as yet another platform. Software developers have to test on both kinds of machines, and in both byte orders... not to mention having to ensure that file & network access is correctly byte-ordered.
The endian issue could be avoided, I suppose. AMD could add a big-endian mode to their processors, if there isn't already one. I can't remember if any of the x86 chips have ever had that kind of mode switch available (PPC does, or did at some stage).
I wonder if Apple would build machines that could run Windows? It wouldn't really hurt Apple if people bought their machines and ran Windows on them -- it seems like a silly thing to do anyhow. More worrisome would be the possibility of getting MacOSX running on a generic low-cost no-name brand PC. That could serious eat into Apple's hardware market.
What makes you think that Microsoft is even competing with Apple these days?
Sorry kids, that battle's over and Microsoft won big time. There seems to be pervasive feeling that it's still 1993, with Apple even capable of being seen as a competitor to Wintel. Well, with a marketshare of 2.5% or so, that simply isn't the case.
As I see it, Apple is still most useful to Microsoft in proving it's not a monopoly. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Microsoft are quite happy with the switch campaign, as it gives a highly visible pretence of their being full competition in the pc market, whilst being utterly unthreatening to Microsoft's sales. Face it, selling Windows XP is not Microsoft's main business anymore. Selling the whole package, of Server, SQL Server, Exchange, Commerce Server, Site Server and the workstation clients numbering in hundreds or thousands to go on such a backroom infrastructure is, and that simply isn't a market that Apple will ever compete in.
If you acept this argument, then you also accept that OsX on x86 is not unfeasible. Os/2 isn't a great comparison for two reasons, firstly the computing landscape was still open enough that everything was up for grabs, and secondly, IBM had the size and clients that meant it could have been a real competitor to Microsoft in a way that Apple never will be again. I don't see much of a campaign by Microsoft to kill Linux...
<strong>
Having an OS that can run on more than one platform, but ignoring that potential is not the wisest move...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Name one OS that runs on multiple hardware platforms and maintains a decent marketshare and/or application support on at least two of those platforms.
[ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: Analogue bubblebath ]</p>
Its so bad that I can't even believe people here actually think it will happen.
It would be the end of Apple.
<strong>I wonder if Apple would build machines that could run Windows? It wouldn't really hurt Apple if people bought their machines and ran Windows on them -- it seems like a silly thing to do anyhow. More worrisome would be the possibility of getting MacOSX running on a generic low-cost no-name brand PC. That could serious eat into Apple's hardware market.</strong><hr></blockquote>
not really an issue -- Apple could easily include something in the hardware that would be required for OS X for x86 to boot.
<strong>
Name one OS that runs on multiple hardware platforms and maintains a decent marketshare and/or application support on at least two of those platforms.
[ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: Analogue bubblebath ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Name one OS that has any kind of decent marketshare and/or application support. The one OS you'd name would be Windows, and to a much lesser degree, the Mac OS.
Outside of the server market, Linux isn't even on the map, and there are no other OS's of note with regards to marketshare and/or application support.
The point being that asking what cross plaform OS has decent marketshare and/or application support is a red herring. Outside of Windows, and marginally the Mac OS, there ARE no other operating systems that meet these criterea, cross platform or not.
[ 08-04-2002: Message edited by: moki ]</p>
<strong>Mac OS X on X86 processors is the worst idea in the history of bad ideas.
Its so bad that I can't even believe people here actually think it will happen.
It would be the end of Apple.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do you have any reasons for stating this? why would it be such a bad idea? Do people really care what processor drives their machine, as long as it is fast?
<strong>
Options could very well mean *both* actually. New kick-ass PPC processor boxes, and x86 boxes as well...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suspect if Apple did offer both x86 and PowerPC, they would sell many more x86 boxes because they would be faster than the PowerPC boxes and they would be able to run windows. What I think would happen next is that Apple would then stop selling PowerPC boxes due to low sales volume. People who recently bought the PowerPC macs would be up crap's river.
If Apple's going to X86, I hope they do it soon. I need to get rid of this 8600 but am not willing to plunk down 3 grand on a new PowerPC machine that Apple may stop producing in a year or so.