Mac with Intel Chip?
While I understand why we all want faster Macs, including those who actually need the additional speed (and the rest of us who just think it would be nice to not have to listen to Windows PC owners telling us about their latest CPU's clock speed), I don't really understand why turning to Intel's CPUs is the solution. Yes, Intel knows how to crank out fast processors, but those processors will NOT run Mac software natively.
I believe Apple does keep current a version of MacOS X that runs on X86 processors, but what about all the Mac commercial application software we now use? NONE of it would run on an Intel Mac. It would all have to be rewritten to run in MacOS X on Intel processors, which means we would have to repurchase ALL the software we're currently using. Why would a vendor who currently has an Intel Windows version of their program go to that expense for 5% of the market? Also, how many frustrated Mac users faced with that prospect would incur that repurchase expense?
I also believe Apple currently makes most of its profit by selling a tightly hardware/OS-integrated product. It's able to do that because it controls the hardware AND the OS. This permits them to sell an exceptionally high quality product, with outstanding industrial design. If it switches to Intel's technology, it loses that edge. Then, people would just see a pretty Mac box, with MacOS X inside running on Intel parts. Most non-Mac people truly believe Windows XP is just as good as MacOS X. So, where's the edge that justifies the premium Apple charges to come from? Are switchers really just converting because of Windows, or does the hardware itself play a part in the overall user experience? If the insides are the same, and XP is just as good (NOT MY opinion, by the way), just how much extra is the pretty case worth? Enough to repurchase all my Windows software to run on an Intel Mac?
IBM has produced a path out of this performance mess. Note I say performance, NOT clock speed. I don't think anyone is professing that IBM's 970-series processors will ever out-clock Intel. As Ars Technica noted in their excellent article on the 970 this week, the new processor follows an entirely different philosophy from Intel's. IBM is more focused on total throughput performance, Intel is more focused on highest speed (for its obvious marketing advantage). While we don't yet know just how well this first generation PPC64 will perform vis-a-vis the latest P4, Itanium, or Hammer CPU, we do know that IBM has the expertise, resources, and incentive to tweak the design of this processor to strengthen its weaknesses. (Motorola lost interest in producing desktop computer CPUs years ago, and is now apparently focusing on low voltage, embedded processors.) That means we'll be able to move forward without Apple's entire developer infrastructure and customers being financially harmed.
We should also keep in mind that Apple has been buying up high-end media software companies over the past couple of years, even though it didn't have the hardware to take full advantage of it. The new IBM 970-series processors built on POWER4 technology offer an answer to this standing question.
No, I don't believe Apple has ANY intention of switching to Intel. The x86 MacOS X exercise is just a demonstration project, likely a last-ditch bargaining chip to keep the company alive if all else fails.
Apple produces the best personal computers around, albeit not the fastest. In 18 years of using Macs, I've had to replace a couple of keyboards, a monitor, and a power supply. Otherwise, they never had a hardware issue. I know that's not everyone's experience, but I believe it applies to most Apple users even today. Apple was the first to introduce the use of the 3 1/4" floppy in a commercial personal computer, and the first to discontinue it, the first to incorporate actual sound (vice a beep), the first to use a graphical interface. And even though Intel's USB was built-into PCs before Macs, it was Apple's initiative with the iMac that pressed it into ubiquitous use. It's been Apple's innovation, its R&D, its risk taking that's driven the personal computer experience. Virtually everyone else follows Apple's lead. And, I believe, we're now seeing Apple's next move down this road.
Apple's clearly planning to move into the high-end media world. (I bet Jobs would love to replace his render farms at Pixar with 970-XServers.) It's also continuing down the integrated digital user experience road with the iApps, the iPod, the i???. To do this, it needs the flexibility to select the best technology around, and then design its own hardware to accommodate it. Switching to Intel would not facilitate that option, and it would alienate its developers and customer base.
