[AirRon]

Question:
If Rosetta is so great, then why are we having to wait a year to see any new Intel hardware? My guess is that it is not so great and/or that drivers and audio performance are not close to done. Someone with more technical knowledge than I can help with this issue of peripherals, etc.

The problem is that PPC sales will plummet for the next year, and confidence in this 3% market will plummet with it . . . AAPL can thank God for the iPod, but the Mac OS platform is fragile now.

Another thing: I can see alot of developers just throwing up their hands and saying "sheesh, just run it in 'Windows mode'" i.e. Virtual PC.

Risky risky move. IBM must have told Apple that they did not have time to engineer for them, and now, with only 3%ish share, they are going to have to run their stuff on a CPU from one of the few companies that gives a damn about making a CPU for a home computer.
No wonder that AOpen PC looked so familiar . . .

[JoshuaZ]

You're completely off base man. Read some of the other thread to know whats happening.

[chabig]

I think any sales lost in the next year will be more than made up for once the transition is underway and people see the power in the new machines.

Chris

[AirRon]

But what in Intel's future is so great? I like Centrino, but in some ways, AMD is the hot property, with its excellent 64 bit stuff. Why did we bet on Intel? I know they have great engineers (but so does IBM). What products are in the pipeline to get psyched about, and why is Chabig talking about "the power in the new machines"?

I wanna love this (I have owned an Apple of some sort since 1978), but this is a huge risk. . .

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by AirRon

I know they have great engineers (but so does IBM). What products are in the pipeline to get psyched about, and why is Chabig talking about "the power in the new machines"?

I wanna love this (I have owned an Apple of some sort since 1978), but this is a huge risk. . .

IBM has great engineers? The engineers that gave us our 3Ghz G5 and sweet laptop G5's?

Huge risk? You actually care what CPU is in your computer? If you did, you wouldn't be using a macintosh.

I'm not going to post in these threads any more. Too many chicken littles.

[namannik]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

IBM has great engineers? The engineers that gave us our 3Ghz G5 and sweet laptop G5's?

Huge risk? You actually care what CPU is in your computer? If you did, you wouldn't be using a macintosh.

I'm not going to post in these threads any more. Too many chicken littles.

Here's some news for you: Apple is not a chip manufacturer! The fact the we haven't seen "our 3Ghz G5 and sweet laptop G5's" is the very reason Apple is switching from IBM's chips to Intel's.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by AirRon

Question:
If Rosetta is so great, then why are we having to wait a year to see any new Intel hardware? My guess is that it is not so great and/or that drivers and audio performance are not close to done. Someone with more technical knowledge than I can help with this issue of peripherals, etc.

What in the world does Rosetta have to do with making Intel-based Macs?

[AirRon]

"Chicken Little" ?
I could say something about "Apple apologists," but, . . . I guess I just did


If you don't think this is a huge risk, you are on Steve Jobs brand crack. Apple did this because they HAD to. IBM told Apple to stuff it with their requests for faster processors, and Apple has had to run to forge a new alliance.

I suspect IBM engineers could have made a 3 GHZ g5 if it mattered at all to their bottom line . . . IBM is much more interested in selling a bazillion multicore XBOX CPUs (which, by the way, are 3+ GHZ . . . hmmm)

Apple was forced to send convulsions through its developer community and attach its fate to one of the last microprocessor companies that gives a damn about making CPUs for home computers. Why am I supposed to be psyched about "all the power" around the corner?

Why not AMD?

Again, I love Macs, it's not the end of the mac world, but what specifically does Intel offer that IBM, problems and all, doesn't? Is centrino kicking G4 powerbook behind?

[chabig]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett

What in the world does Rosetta have to do with making Intel-based Macs?

Rosetta is a key part of the foundation of the Intel based Macs.

[AirRon]

Rosetta is the code that allows x86 Macs to emulate PPC and run current Mac apps. (although we now know that it emulates G3, not G4 or G5 specific stuff, and it does not emulate altivec, not surprisingly. see here: http://developer.apple.com/documenta...sal_binary.pdf)

I would say Rosetta is pretty key? no?

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by AirRon

Question:
If Rosetta is so great, then why are we having to wait a year to see any new Intel hardware? My guess is that it is not so great and/or that drivers and audio performance are not close to done. Someone with more technical knowledge than I can help with this issue of peripherals, etc.

The problem is that PPC sales will plummet for the next year, and confidence in this 3% market will plummet with it . . . AAPL can thank God for the iPod, but the Mac OS platform is fragile now.

Another thing: I can see alot of developers just throwing up their hands and saying "sheesh, just run it in 'Windows mode'" i.e. Virtual PC.

Risky risky move. IBM must have told Apple that they did not have time to engineer for them, and now, with only 3%ish share, they are going to have to run their stuff on a CPU from one of the few companies that gives a damn about making a CPU for a home computer.
No wonder that AOpen PC looked so familiar . . .

Apple has something like $6 billion in the bank now. With the help of the iPod, and the fact that the G5 is still a good chip, I really don't believe that Apple will be going under over this. In fact, Steve said they have been working on OSX on Intel for 5 years now, so I would not be surprised if Apples large cash reserves were created in preparation for the possible slow mac sales between PPC & Intel.

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

You actually care what CPU is in your computer? If you did, you wouldn't be using a macintosh.

What ********. I do care what CPU is in my computer, and it's actually one of the reasons I do choose to use Macintosh. The CPU design is elegant, just like the OS, just like the rest of the hardware.

[osxpinot]

I'm sure Apple is going to keep it's Intel transition under the radar until it happens. The average shopper at an Apple will probably not know.

[JoshuaZ]

Clearly most people buy Macs for the OS. IBM couldn't deliver. Intel can. I want a laptop that fast, cool, and gets good battery life.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by joltguy

What ********. I do care what CPU is in my computer, and it's actually one of the reasons I do choose to use Macintosh. The CPU design is elegant, just like the OS, just like the rest of the hardware.

So you do not care how fast your computer is? What about how expensive? What about add-on's like graphic's cards and such, do you care how expensive they are? And software release dates too, do you care how much later they come for OSX after they are released to windows?

Adding an Intel is not going to make Macintosh computers less elegant, it will only increase performance and make themincrease in performance, and the extras cost less. The PowerPC is a nice processor, but in several years is will probably be too far behind in speed and power consumption for Apple's taste.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by chabig

Rosetta is a key part of the foundation of the Intel based Macs.

Rosetta allows apps not ported to run on Intel chips. It has nothing to do with the production of Intel-based Macs. Releasing Intel-based Macs before there are major commercial apps compiled for them would be suicide.

[Don Pickett]

Originally Posted by AirRon

Rosetta is the code that allows x86 Macs to emulate PPC and run current Mac apps. (although we now know that it emulates G3, not G4 or G5 specific stuff, and it does not emulate altivec, not surprisingly. see here: http://developer.apple.com/documenta...sal_binary.pdf)

I would say Rosetta is pretty key? no?

I know what Rosetta is – I watched the keynote.

See my post above: Rosetta has nothing to do with releasing Intel-based Macs, which is largely a hardware engineering problem. Additionally, releasing Intel-based Macs before there is native software for them would be suicide.

[esXXI]

Originally Posted by AirRon

Rosetta is the code that allows x86 Macs to emulate PPC and run current Mac apps. (although we now know that it emulates G3, not G4 or G5 specific stuff, and it does not emulate altivec, not surprisingly. see here: http://developer.apple.com/documenta...sal_binary.pdf)

I would say Rosetta is pretty key? no?

Rosetta is the 'dynamic re-compiling' on the chips (as people have put together from all the Transitive stuff). The reason it's not "all that" is because it doesn't work on the following:
• Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9
• Code written specifically for AltiVec
• Code that inserts preferences in the System Preferences pane
• Applications that require a G4 or G5 processor
• Applications that depend on one or more kernel extensions
• Kernel extensions
• Bundled Java applications or Java applications with JNI libraries that can’t be translated

[iMOTOR]

I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the fact that most of the worlds top supercomputers use Power chips. Power is a supercomputer chip, x86 is not, x86 is a consumer grade chip.

Sorry if this has already been discussed here but why can't a Mac use the same chip that IBM is sending to Microsoft for the xbox?

[osxpinot]

Well, I'm sure Apple's decision is focused a lot around the delivery of chips to their laptop market. One has to admit, the Powerbooks have a killer design, but battery life just isn't their strong point anymore. Furthermore, there have been no big speed improvements in G4 Powerbooks of late, so it definately time do something there. IBM promised Jobs 3GHZ one year ago, and they did not deliver. Today's were basically aimed at telling IBM to go shove it.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by iMOTOR

Sorry if this has already been discussed here but why can't a Mac use the same chip that IBM is sending to Microsoft for the xbox?

Who knows what coding for the Xbox chip is like. The Xbox chip is built for gaming, not PC use.

[Chuckit]

Yes, the Power line is a superior architecture. That doesn't mean it has better options available there. You can have an incredibly sophisticated, mind-boggling architecture that does nothing for you if it's not being developed in the direction you need.

As for why Apple can't use the Xbox chip: I really don't know the specs of the Xbox's chip, but since video game systems are usually very specialized, I doubt it would make a good choice for a general PC processor.

What I don't get is this: Do people think that Steve threw darts at a piece of paper with "Intel" written on one side and "IBM" on the other? I don't see how there can be any doubt that Apple spent a long time weighing the benefits of each architecture (and yes, they do happen to know at least as much about the PowerPC line as most schmoes on MacNN) and finally decided that their best bet was to switch. If their research (which, again, is no doubt way more extensive than yours, whoever you may be) showed that going through the massive amount of trouble was worth it, then it most likely is worth it.

[lngtones]

Originally Posted by joltguy

What ********. I do care what CPU is in my computer, and it's actually one of the reasons I do choose to use Macintosh. The CPU design is elegant, just like the OS, just like the rest of the hardware.

I'd be very impressed if you could give at least one example of why the PowerPC is so elegant without looking on Google and pointing to another site...

After that, explain why an average user gives a damn...

[Randman]

I timed the time it took Steve to open the latest version of PS using Rosetta. Running 3.6Ghz Intel (about the same as a 2.0 PPC), it took about 6 second less to load then it did on my 1.5Ghz PowerBook17 (with 1.5GB of ram). Not bad.

[osxpinot]

I don't understand how Rosetta works. We are always hearing how hard it is to emulate PPC on Intel. I understand that we are talking about the same OS but damn.

[Superchicken]

I think simply nobody knew how to do it right... it's crazy though... if Photoshop is opening that fast on a new Machine like that... granted how much CPU is required in opening a program verses HD speed? Either way, WE might be looking at speeds as high as .5 the speed of the Pentium... that'd mean if we get a 2Ghz centrino probably decently common by that time. Seeing as how it is faster than a P4 at the same Ghz... it'll be... somewhat of an only slight drop in speed compared to brand new PPC machines of today... that's... kinda crazy... though I'm still not really buying any exclusively native PPC apps any more...

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by Superchicken

I think simply nobody knew how to do it right... it's crazy though... if Photoshop is opening that fast on a new Machine like that... granted how much CPU is required in opening a program verses HD speed? Either way, WE might be looking at speeds as high as .5 the speed of the Pentium... that'd mean if we get a 2Ghz centrino probably decently common by that time. Seeing as how it is faster than a P4 at the same Ghz... it'll be... somewhat of an only slight drop in speed compared to brand new PPC machines of today... that's... kinda crazy... though I'm still not really buying any exclusively native PPC apps any more...

We've got 1-2 years... How many "professional" apps won't be "universal binary" by that time? Maybe a bunch, maybe a few... But we've got 1-2 years.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by esXXI

Rosetta is the 'dynamic re-compiling' on the chips (as people have put together from all the Transitive stuff). The reason it's not "all that" is because it doesn't work on the following:
• Applications built for Mac OS 8 or 9

So we know for sure that the Classic environment doesn't work with it? That would be a bummer.

edit: found it in the docs. great...

[Scooterboy]

The Intel roadmap is as much vaporware as IBM's was for the G5. There's no guarranty that Intel can deliver, either. If they can't, at least Apple will be in the same boat as all the other PC vendors. One question: Why seed developers with Pentium 4's and not Pentium M's?

I'll probably buy a PC in the next 6 or so months, and wait for the dust to settle before I decide to buy another Mac.

[Randman]

Go buy a pc. Be sure to get virus protection.

[Scooterboy]

I will. Of course, every Mac will be a PC soon. I'll still have my PowerBook for OS X.

[budster101]

"Every Mac will be a PC soon." ??? Sorry, but that will never be the CASE. The JOB for Apple is to be competative in the marketplace and this is just another in a series of necessary things to do in order to bring the company to the next level. I have some advice for some of you with some money to invest.

- Buy Intel Stock
- Buy more Apple Stock
- Buy Microsoft Stock

Yes, you read that right. Now do it.

3 years from now you will be wanting to send me some extra cash in your pockets to thank me...

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by gururafiki

So you do not care how fast your computer is? What about how expensive? What about add-on's like graphic's cards and such, do you care how expensive they are? And software release dates too, do you care how much later they come for OSX after they are released to windows?

Let me answer each of your questions:

1. So you do not care how fast your computer is?
Of course I do (although my current computer is waaay outdated). I guess by asking me that you must be hinting that the current Macs are not fast. Please. They are plenty fast enough by today's standards. People keep throwing the 3GHz promise around like some kind of holy grail. Current G5s are up to 2.7GHz now. Any other update that Apple would release that contained a mere .3GHz speed bump would be shrugged off by almost everyone. But of course because it's the magic 3GHz mark we all can't live without it. According to your sig you've got a Dual G5 PowerMac.... are you telling me that you think your system would perform better with current Intel offerings? I hope not, because you'd be wrong.

2. What about how expensive?
Yeah, this is kind of a silly question. Nobody wants to overpay, including me. Wait! I just got what you're saying: when the Macs have Intel CPUs, they will be cheaper! Eureka! This is awesome news! I can't wait for those cheap Macs. We'll see if this happens.

3. What about add-on's like graphic's cards and such, do you care how expensive they are?
This kinda fits in with your last question. I think I should point out though that just because Apple slaps an Intel chip into the Mac doesn't suddenly mean that ATI (or whoever) is gonna knock that $50 (or whatever) premium off their price tag. I don't know for sure that the increased price represented the extra effort that was required to make it work on the Power architecture. And finally...

4. And software release dates too, do you care how much later they come for OSX after they are released to windows?
What software are you referring to? The only thing I can think of is GAMES. Big deal. Get a gaming system. Ironically enough, I hear they'll be PPC powered pretty soon. Pretty much every other class of application is either built-in, readily available, or released in tandem with Windows versions.

[AKcrab]

Originally Posted by joltguy

[i]People keep throwing the 3GHz promise around like some kind of holy grail. Current G5s are up to 2.7GHz now. Any other update that Apple would release that contained a mere .3GHz speed bump would be shrugged off by almost everyone. But of course because it's the magic 3GHz mark we all can't live without it.

3GHz was supposed to be a year ago. Not "almost now".

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by lngtones

I'd be very impressed if you could give at least one example of why the PowerPC is so elegant without looking on Google and pointing to another site...

So easily impressed!

It's called "RISC" architecture. Thats an acronym. I'll give you the opportunity to Google it. Done? Okay. Now, in case you're wondering what that fancy acronym means, I'll tell you. It means that this CPU gets more done in less clock cycles. How? Glad you asked. It combines operations that take multiple clock cycles on other processors (like our new friend the Pentium 4) and reduces them into a single instruction. Getting the same (or more) work done with less? That's ELEGANCE, computer science style.

Originally Posted by Ingtones

After that, explain why an average user gives a damn...

I'm not going to bother with this, because I'm not speaking on behalf of all the average users out there. I'm speaking on behalf of me. Average users won't care until they are plagued with the decision of buying a PowerPC Mac now or waiting for the new Intel Macs. Fortunately that decision will be made for them by the end of 2007.

Look, I'm not a fool. I realize that the Mac will still be a Mac after this transition. I switched to the Mac because the OS *totally* lives up to the Apple hype of the "world's most advanced operating system". I certainly have no plans of switching back as a result of yesterday's announcement. I'm just saying that I think Apple gave up on the PPC too quickly, and (possibly) for the wrong reasons.

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by AKcrab

3GHz was supposed to be a year ago. Not "almost now".

Thanks for demostrating my point so visibly (and quickly)!! Keep playing that GHz game buddy. It's the new version of the MHz game only this time it matters even less!

[d.fine]

I wonder why they chose to call it Rosetta :

" It shows how much things had changed from Pharaonic times that the priests, the only people who had kept the knowledge of writing hieroglyphs, were now issuing such decrees. The list of good deeds done by the king for the temples hints at the way in which the support of the priests was ensured. "

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/co.../goto?id=OBJ67

[typoon]

Originally Posted by joltguy

Look, I'm not a fool. I realize that the Mac will still be a Mac after this transition. I switched to the Mac because the OS *totally* lives up to the Apple hype of the "world's most advanced operating system". I certainly have no plans of switching back as a result of yesterday's announcement. I'm just saying that I think Apple gave up on the PPC too quickly, and (possibly) for the wrong reasons.

Gave up on the PPC too quickly? We've been waiting for a 3GHz G5 for 2 years. Not here yet. Moto (freescale), IBM couldn't keep up and didn't deliver. Macs have been on the PPC chip for about 10 years now. WHere are we? still stuck below 3GHz while Intel is almost at 4GHz. gave up so soon? 10 years of waiting is not too soon if you ask me.

[AB^2=BCxAC]

Originally Posted by joltguy

Thanks for demostrating my point so visibly (and quickly)!! Keep playing that GHz game buddy. It's the new version of the MHz game only this time it matters even less!

I'm not so sure the GHz game is all that sparrowfart that you think it is. The agenda for the industry is to consistently release faster machines to keep people in an upgrade cycle, and to allow heavy burden tasks to be accomplished faster to help businesses save time (aka. enticement).

Apple has had to entice people along the upgrade cycle with their Powermacs with unreasonably shallow speedbumbs and operating system upgrades. The fact that Apple kept us going along with Tiger and sub-3 GHz chips is marketting brilliance... but that only holds your core business for so long, especially when industry pressure is mounting.

And Steve Jobs made a promise with his mouth ages ago that we'd have more speed, and he admitted his ass was grass in that department. It's perfectly valid for that issue to come up with this conversation, and it doesn't prove your point.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by joltguy

I'm just saying that I think Apple gave up on the PPC too quickly, and (possibly) for the wrong reasons.

Seven years of being consistently behind where they intended to be is too quickly? This is the second time a PowerPC company has been more than a year behind what they promised.

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by typoon

Gave up on the PPC too quickly? We've been waiting for a 3GHz G5 for 2 years. Not here yet. Moto (freescale), IBM couldn't keep up and didn't deliver. Macs have been on the PPC chip for about 10 years now. WHere are we? still stuck below 3GHz while Intel is almost at 4GHz. gave up so soon? 10 years of waiting is not too soon if you ask me.

3Ghz. There's that number again. Holy grail. Switching to Intel just so we can finally say "woohoo! 3+ GHz, we're in the game!" is a lousy reason to switch if you ask me. Surely you must have some amazingly fantastical piece software that you've been writing or wanting to run that can't be done with the supercomputers that Apple has been put on all of our desks and (more incredibly) in our laps.

What I actually meant by "gave up too quickly" was gave up "too soon" (my bad). I just meant that there were exciting developments on the PPC horizon (dual core, cell, etc.) and we won't see any of them now.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by joltguy

3Ghz. There's that number again. Holy grail. Switching to Intel just so we can finally say "woohoo! 3+ GHz, we're in the game!" is a lousy reason to switch if you ask me. Surely you must have some amazingly fantastical piece software that you've been writing or wanting to run that can't be done with the supercomputers that Apple has been put on all of our desks and (more incredibly) in our laps.

What I actually meant by "gave up too quickly" was gave up "too soon" (my bad). I just meant that there were exciting developments on the PPC horizon (dual core, cell, etc.) and we won't see any of them now.

Like I've said before most customers look at the speed of the processor. The average comsumer looks at the speed of the processor whether it matters or not. If they see a Mac at 2.7GHz while a Windows PC is running at 3.6 GHz which do you think they will buy? The 3.6GHz because it's "faster" in their eyes. Whether it technically is or not.

The "AVERAGE" user doesn't care that our 2.7 GHz G5 is faster than a 3.6 GHz they only see the 3.6GHz and think that is faster because the number is bigger.

From what I understand there already is or will be soon a Dual Core Intel chip. I could be wrong though.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by joltguy

3Ghz. There's that number again. Holy grail. Switching to Intel just so we can finally say "woohoo! 3+ GHz, we're in the game!" is a lousy reason to switch if you ask me. Surely you must have some amazingly fantastical piece software that you've been writing or wanting to run that can't be done with the supercomputers that Apple has been put on all of our desks and (more incredibly) in our laps.

What I actually meant by "gave up too quickly" was gave up "too soon" (my bad). I just meant that there were exciting developments on the PPC horizon (dual core, cell, etc.) and we won't see any of them now.

I think the reason Apple is going to Intel is because IBM sees a future with PPC chips - but Apple isn't part of it. Yeah there are some exciting developments (future gaming consoles) - but it looks to me that IBM dropped Apple, not the other way around. Steve did the right thing, especially after the MOT days.

IMO In the long term future we'll see dual 4ghz+ in a pro setup that'll squash a current dual G5, and at less cost. Short term: faster powerbooks - I guess 2X as fast as current shipping systems. I hope.

As for Rosetta - well, it sounds too good to be true. But Apple has been on this for 5 years and the demo looked okay. Another year and maybe it'll do Altivec and make vintage apps go faster. Wait and see for now.

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

I'm not so sure the GHz game is all that sparrowfart that you think it is. The agenda for the industry is to consistently release faster machines to keep people in an upgrade cycle, and to allow heavy burden tasks to be accomplished faster to help businesses save time (aka. enticement).

Apple has had to entice people along the upgrade cycle with their Powermacs with unreasonably shallow speedbumbs and operating system upgrades. The fact that Apple kept us going along with Tiger and sub-3 GHz chips is marketting brilliance... but that only holds your core business for so long, especially when industry pressure is mounting.

First, "sparrowfart"?? That made me laugh.

Second, Apple's had no problems selling systems lately. Watch the keynote... Apple's hardware sales are trouncing the PC industry sales.

Originally Posted by AB^2=BCxAC

And Steve Jobs made a promise with his mouth ages ago that we'd have more speed, and he admitted his ass was grass in that department. It's perfectly valid for that issue to come up with this conversation, and it doesn't prove your point.

Obviously they missed that promise. I'm not disputing that. I'm sure Steve feels badly/embarrassed about that. Everyone has made sure he does by constantly throwing it in his face via media/forums, etc. I'm just saying that it matters a whole lot less than people are saying it does. Simply stated, the current PowerMacs are amazing! That's what matters. Not the fr¡ggin number. Apple built an entire chain of awesome retail stores to show people what they could do with their computer, to draw attention away from this silly number. Why? Because the number doesn't matter, because Macs are infinitely useful in their current form. We don't need to play that numbers game in our camp because we already know its meaningless. At least some of us do.

[joltguy]

Originally Posted by typoon

Like I've said before most customers look at the speed of the processor. The average comsumer looks at the speed of the processor whether it matters or not. If they see a Mac at 2.7GHz while a Windows PC is running at 3.6 GHz which do you think they will buy? The 3.6GHz because it's "faster" in their eyes. Whether it technically is or not.

The "AVERAGE" user doesn't care that our 2.7 GHz G5 is faster than a 3.6 GHz they only see the 3.6GHz and think that is faster because the number is bigger.

Thank you! You've so wonderfully encapsulated the reason for my disappointment. According to your post, Apple made the switch so that they could sell more to the ignorant. To hell with the people who know better. Yeah, it's all business I know. Technological superiority no longer matters. What matters is market share. Unfortunately, Apple's market share doesn't do squat for me when I'm using my Mac... the technology does though.

[gururafiki]

Originally Posted by osiris

I think the reason Apple is going to Intel is because IBM sees a future with PPC chips - but Apple isn't part of it. Yeah there are some exciting developments (future gaming consoles) - but it looks to me that IBM dropped Apple, not the other way around. Steve did the right thing, especially after the MOT days.

IBM made nothing from Apple, so they probably didn't put much effort into PPC developement for the PC. All their research has gone into the Xbox, Playstation, and Nintendo console chips. I am sure we will still see 3ghz G5 before the switch to Intel, but I don't think the G5 will go much faster than that.