Macintosh Moving to Intel Processors [Updated]

[heisetax]

Rotten idea leaving IBM/Motorola for Intel

As rumored, Steve Jobs announced today at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference that the Macintosh will make a transition to Intel processors.

Jobs reviewed the two previous major transitions, from Motorola 680x0 processors to the PowerPC in 1994 thru 1996 (before Steve Jobs was back at the helm), and from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X in 2001 through 2003. Saying "It's time for a third transition," he explained that the need for the change was more than just the inability to deliver a 3.0GHz Power Mac, as he promised 2 years ago, but that Intel offers increased performance AND reduced power consumption ("Intel chips runs cooler"), a critical factor for PowerBooks, and an exceptional "roadmap" into 2006 and beyond.

He said that Mac OS X has been living a secret double life for the past five years (see Marklar rumor) and gave a demonstration. The design for Mac OS X has always been processor independent and cross-platform capable by design. The technology to let existing PowerPC applications run on Intel is named Rosetta and performs dynamic translation transparent to users (see QuickTransit from Transitive).

Mac OS on Intel is to be given to developers (ADC "Select" and "Premier" members) now and to customers "this time next year." The transition will be completed in less than 2 years, by the end of 2007. Dashboard widgets, scripts, and Java programs do not need porting. With Xcode 2.1 (out today and distributed at the keynote), developers can make a "tweak" and recompile for Cocoa applications, and port Carbon applications in a matter of weeks. Mathematica was ported in 2 days, although the porting team had direct support from Apple. A universal version of MS Office is coming. Photoshop and its plug-ins run with typical performance but take longer to load.

All demonstrations during the Keynote were performed on a 3.6GHz Pentium 4, to the surprise of many in the audience.

intel press release: http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050606corp.htm
apple press release: http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2005/jun/06intel.html

This is real bad news as far as I'm concerned. It just shows that Steve Jobs is just a salesman & not a computer hardware or software person. I will not purchase a Mac with an Intel processor in it, no matter how good the saleman steve Jobs says that it is. He told us the same thing about the G5, G4, G3 & before. Now he claims that the Intel would be better. I'm just not falling for any of his stories again. I may try a new Mac, but who will when the handwritting is on the wall as to the future of the G4/G5 Mac. I'll only buy used ones now.

The software companies will be hit the hardest by this. I see no reason to purchase any new software now. Steve Jobs is making the PPC a dead platform. How can you ask anyone to inovate on the Mac now. I'm sure that a lot of other people will do as I will be doing. That means software vendors leaving the Mac with many of them thinking 2 or 3 times before they come back.

Since I prepare income taxes as my living, I have chosen to write my tax preparation software in Excel for the Mac. That means that it will run on Windows just as well. I alreadywork with a Windows User & we jointly use a Windows only program. I don't like the Windows platform, but like Intel processors even more. So my choices will either be Windows under AMD, Mac under AMD, but that may not happen, or using the old Macs as long as I can, (years probably) then switching to AMD, but hopfully on the Mac platform.s

It has been a great 20 years with the Mac. That means that I shold be able to make 25 easily & maybe even 30. Without the need of purchasing new software to match new hardware, I'll be able to save a lot of money. I was just ready to purchase some new utility software, but I've thrown those plans out for now.

Steve Jobs has just done what lntit was not able to when they stopped making a professional Mac tax preparation software, switch me away from a Mac.

As far as I'm concerned OS 10.4 is a dud without new software to use its features. This means that the new software will probably not come. So that means that OS 10.4 will stay on my back shelf. I have not used it for several weeks now, even though I had it installed on an extgernal 2.5" drive for my PowerBook. Its a dud, more Steve Jobs sales hype than real useful features at the current time. OS 10.3.9 does everything that I need to do, & does not require new versions of software just to continue to run.

Maybe I can sell my copy of OS 10.4. Its only been used a few times since I installed it the day before it was officially released.

Bill the TaxMan

 

[ofrignya7]

WOW...

Apparently, either a large segment of the MacRumors community didn't watch the Keynote, or flatly ignored it.

To all of the nay-sayers, I present the following:

Steve Jobs is essentially the inventor of the personal computer, as well as one of the main original benefactors of mainstream computer animation via Pixar. Steve also brought the Mac platform back from the brink of certain doom when he regained his position as the CEO, and since then has brought us, basically, every major inovation in personal computing since then. Apple is THE innovator in personal computing that everyone else follows, and you'd have to be an idiot not to realize that. Did Windows Media Player rip CDs before iTunes? Hell no. Did that aborted fetus of digital filmmaking, Windows MovieMaker, exist before iMovie? NO! Did the VERY CONCEPT OF PERSONAL COMPUTING EXIST BEFORE APPLE? NO!!

So, you naysayers, who mostly cling to the title of "some guy", are trying to second guess the INVENTOR OF PERSONAL COMPUTING? We wouldn't even be on this forum, sitting in front of our Windows XP Home Edition or Mac OS 10.4 computers if not for Jobs, and now you think you have the audacity to second guess his business sense? Jobs didn't get to where he is by being an idiot. He didn't become the CEO of the foremost innovator of the PC world by accident, by making lucky stabs in the dark. Jobs is no fool, and I die a little inside eac time I read a post on here saying something to the effect of "I hope Steve did his homework". OF COURSE he did his homework, for ****'s sake! He's the CEO of the world's premier computer company! What do you think he did, consult a ****ing Ouji board?

"But why would anyone buy a Mac if they could buy a $300 Dell with OS X?"

Have you mouth-breathers ever heard of the Fritz chip? TCPA? Technology already exists to keep you from running any un-authorized software on any PC anywhere. And I have just the SLIGHTEST hunch that it works in reverse, too. Obviously, Apple will have some form of hardware check that will keep it from running on a Dell. Which will also obsolete programs like PearPC. Because Jobs doesn't want you to run OS X anywhere but a Mac, and this is his opportunity to make it a lot harder for you to do so. The only reason PearPC is still allowed to function is because it's obscure. The minute it starts getting really popular, you had better believe Steve would lay the smack down via OS X's license agreement which EXPLICITLY states that you can't run OS X on any computer but a Mac. Some industrious hackers will probably create a mod chip to get around the restrictions, but it will be illegal, and cumbersome, and a hassle, and people won't use it. Come on folks.

"But what about the G5 benchmarks? Didn't he say it was faster than the P4?"

it IS faster than the P4 you dumb ****s! But how many times did Steve go out of his way to state that the developer kits were NOT PRODCUTS and went so far as to say that they had to be RETURNED TO APPLE? Apple made this decision based on Intel's ROADMAP. I am personally accquanited with one of the main engineers of the Centrino project, and I guarantee you all, 64-bit dual-core processors are in Intel's immediate future. They're not about to be bested by ****ing IBM. Aple isn't going to put second rate processors into their machines, just like they don't put second-rate ANYTHING ELSE.

"But now my computer is obsolete! Whatever will I do?"

HOLY ****, DID YOU NOT SEE THE ENTIRE DUAL BINARY PRESNTATION? THE FOCUS OF 25% OF THE KEYNOTE? How retarded would a developer have to be to not make software for a huge installed base? To basically guarantee themselves a massive profit loss? And did ANYONE EXCEPT ME notice the fact that Steve and his guest developers made it clear that this switch would be easier than carbonization? Apple learned from the last time they made developers do this, and they're not going to make the same mistakes again. I re-iterate, Apple is not a traveling group of trained monkeys, they are the engineers behind the foremost personal computers in the world. And I guess you guys also missed the growth charts for Apple computers, which SHOULD have demonstrated to you doomsayers that MORE PEOPLE THAN EVER WANT APPLE COMPUTERS, AND A CHANGE OF PROCESSOR WON'T CHANGE THAT.

"OMG Apple is doomed WTF h4x0r"

Apple invented personal computing. They have been a lot closer to the brink than this. And in case you didn't notice, Apple's sales are growing faster than the rest of the PC industry. Not to mention that Apple is TRENDY right now. Apple is in a better position to survive than it was in the 80s when they were on top. Now they offer a viable alternative to the ****-storm of viruses, software, and memory dumps endemic to XP, not to mention just being a lot cooler. NON OF THAT is going to change because of a processor switch.

"I'm not buying a Macintel computer! Pout pout!"

OK ****er, go back to using Windows. See if I give two *****.

So in closing, all of you armchair CEOs should probably consider the fact that while Steve Jobs is the uncontested master of innovation in personal computing, you are some guy sitting at your computer on a Monday afternoon probably eating a bag of cheetos and waiting for your shift at your crappy minimum wage job.

Only in the Mac community would people think of faster, cooler processors and more readily availble games and hardware a bad thing.

 

[topgunn]

Most of you are forgetting that the P4 is not Intel's fastest processor. It is not the coolest. It is not the future. It is dead and Intel has said that it will not pursue the netburst architecture any furthur. The Macs we see in 1-2 years will not have P4's. The Dells we see in 2 years won't have P4's.

 

[j_maddison]

Is there a danger that Apple might decide to put some sub standard parts, like they have with the go5200 graphics card in powerbooks for exampl, into their intel boxes? There is going to be alot of transparency in the hardware. I do hope that Apple will chose the best components for their macs, but alas I feel there is a danger that Apple will charge a premium for hardware that isnt quite cutting edge. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm not sure I will be.

Jay
p.s correct me if I'm wrong, but dont Intel have a ton of different flavoured chips? as opposed to the relatively easy to follow G4 and G5 series of chips.

p.p.s Will this mean great graphics cards being available for the mac sooner rather than later

p.p.p's (if there is such a thing) will we have a grater choice of games that will have great performance on macs

p.p.p.ps will be call these chips G6's???

Ok my head hurts and I'm confused, anyone care to help a neophite out!!

 

[fgdn17]

Not really. Wintel machines won't be able to run OS X; it's just as possible that Apple-Intel machines wouldn't be able to run Windows.

Granted, the computers can probably be hacked to work both ways, but it was definitely Apple's choice to allow Windows to run on the new systems.

The question is: what about hard drives? Windows can't run on HFS+ and who would want to run OS X on FAT (If that's possible). It's not currently possible to partition one drive into FAT and HFS+ natively (you have to use a semi-hack with pdisk I think it is). Will this change or will you need two hard drives to do it without causing problems?

duh...DEC's ALPHA was running windows in 1992...MAC OSX has the
same kernel...so why won't it be able to run...?????? Do your homework
then spout off...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jaw04005]

After watching the Keynote, I do feel better about the transition. It does appear that Intel will be capable of providing Apple with better performance and possibly at a lower cost.

Later this year, I do expect Apple to release more information about their partnership. Are they planning on using the Pentium D chip? Or another line? Will it be 64-bit or 32-bit?

I do have one lingering question though. What about the G5, will developers continue to specifically optimize their applications for it? I would expect not.

I was planning on purchasing a PowerMac G5 this year, however I have decided to postpone that purchase due to this annoucement. I would anticipate that Apple's hardware sales will take a hit over the next 6+ months.

 

[MacTruck]

A lot of people are going feel the same I'm afraid. All those Apple store's are going to be very quite for the next 11 to 12 months.

No they won't because the average consumer will not know about it. You think that they will have a banner up that says "All hardware purchased today won't be useable next year" NO. People will buy up until the last day. Most of the purchases at the apple store are from impulse buyers that think they look neat. Poor soles.

 

[Synthdance]

I want PowerMac to be the fastest and the most advanced computer one can buy. I don't care if its CPU comes from Intel, IBM, Motorola, etc.

If this transition will make PowerMacs run A LOT faster, then let there be Intel.

For me, Apple means the most advanced and user friendly OS in this universe. OS9 was far superior to Win95 and OSX is far superior to Win XP. Leopard will crush Shorthorn and make it look like child's toy.

So for me, it can be even a little elf inside all those new Macs, counting bits by hand, as long as those new Macs will run OSX and be VERY fast

Regards,

Maciej Repetowski
AXIS Records
www.axisrecords.net

 

[guez]

Really?

For every one doomsayer there are 5 people who are seriously considering the Mac now.

Who? It still isn't a PC, it will still cost more (presumably). I just don't see a big "if only Apple would use Intel" market.

 

[law guy]

Not really. Wintel machines won't be able to run OS X; it's just as possible that Apple-Intel machines wouldn't be able to run Windows.

Apple press releases have Phil S. saying that while Apple won't provide tech support for folks that put Win on an Intel Mac, Apple won't take any steps to prevent folks from doing that.

He also says that OS X will only run on the Apple Intel machines. So for folks that buy apple, a choice of OS on startup seems like a nice selling point for some.

 

[ObsidianIce]

To whom it nay concern,
Thank Steve on behalf of the Mac community for killing the future of the Macintosh and relegating us all to a dead 32 Bit X86 architecture filled with lackluster hardware with no standardization (ever wonder why Windows crashes a lot). Has he been hanging out with Gil Amelio? If I had wanted OSX on an X86 based PC, I could have just downloaded Darwin X86 and loaded it on my 300 dollar PC. I remained loyal to the Macintosh because of the hardware... Because it was an affordable and stable RISC based architecture for the average consumer. You've also slapped everyone in the face who shelled out big money for their PPC Macs by making our machines instantly obsolete and killing any further development for the platform. Not everyone can afford spending thousands of dollars on a new computer and software every year or two unless your wealthy like Steve and Bill or make high 5 or low 6 digit salaries. We better be happy with our current software versions and hardware.
I've supported the X86 world on a professional level for over a decade. The unreliable X86 hardware and software is what made me a Mac user on a personal level to begin with; take the fact that X86 based hardware tries to cram peripheral cards and components into the first 15 interrupts considering that there are thousands. And you thought the old days of extension conflicts were bad. After a while, considering how small the Macintosh market share and install base is, I can see Adobe and the other mainstream App builders dropping support for the Mac. Why should they continue to build apps. If they were really interested in building Unix based versions of their software for X86, why haven't these companies already developed apps for the existing versions of Unix, the Linux variants and the BSD variants on which OSX is based?
Apple better pull off something really spectacular to keep me on board. I'm sure that there are a lot of other Mac users who feel the same way as I do. A PC is nothing more than a cheap pocket calculator, an appliance. The Mac had class, something that set it above every other computer and made people willing to spend a premium to get it. How will Apple justify that now?
It will be interesting to see how many consumers will pay a premium for X86 based Macs, when a similar PC from Dell, Gateway or any one of thousands of clones will cost half as much. After all I seem to recall Steve killing all the Mac clones in 1996 and buying off Power Computing. I still have a Power Tower Pro running around somewhere. Maybe Apple will just become a software company that sells music and MP3 players. This could be death for Apple. I hope everyone at Cupertino updated their resumes. Maybe Steve can turn the Cupertino campus into low income housing. Good thing he has Pixar.

Interesting but kinda pointless. Apple will be using Intel chips, but the chips will be sitting in a logic board that has been apple designed as usual. ANd how has your system become obsolete? Because in a YEAR some intel powered machines will be shipping, does that make a current system not work? Especially since we pretty much know that a g5 is pretty kick ass? sounds to me like it's nothing more than standard progress....in a year there will be something better. Because new machines are shipping you're old machine doesn't somehow stop working or work at half capacity...Why would Adobe drop support? Apple Adobe have been hand in hand for a while. If you saw or read the Keynote the Ceo i believe basically said the same thing again...That they'll be the first company with a Suite of software out for the new Macs. Plus the operating system will still be OSX. The apple class came from much more than just whatever chip happens to be running the machine. Apple will still have the exact same ideals driving them that have always brough about good products ( except for a few bombs some of which were good...but just didn't pan out). If funny everyone seemed to piss and moan about the fact that Steve promised us 3.0 Ghz 2 years ago...and that the lastes upgrade was to totally unimpressive speed bump from 2.5 to 2.7. So now we've gone and switched to a new company that is basically the top chip producer in the world. Yeah you've got AMD and spec for spec they do beat out Intel quite often, but also AMD seems to have some issues. Why would apple through in with them when they have had problems? On a HUGE change like this you you want somthing that just gonna work and from a company that's just gonna be there and for damn sure will get your product to you.
I imagine there are definitely be some pains, but cinsidering what i know of where the intel roadmap is actually going ( and i know a lot and won't share bor do i work there) i think it's pretty interesting and considering that IBM is currently stuck it's reeally best for Apple to jump ship. How many people would be royally pissed off if this time next year we were stuck with dual 3.0 machines and that's it? I'm betting that would anger and alienate far more people since we would truly be falling behind at that point. It's Apple's third transition we made it through the first two and came out stronger, i'm betting that it will happen again.

Oh yeah..forgot one other rant and probably the most important. All of us on theses rumor sites get all worked up about about the processers. But honestly. If you ask the average cpu user what processor they are running on....do you really think they know? or even care? The average user wants a computer that works and could not possibly care less if it's intel, IBM, Freescale or whoever. They know who made their computer and that's it really. So most people buying will basically never know the difference between the two. Long as apple makes it work and maintains the essence NOT THE CHIP that makes them Apple then they'll be fine.

 

[shompa]

Nah. They could have bought Sun Microsystems and went with a SPARC V chip.

Yepp.
The Sun Niagara chip is fun:
32 threads at the same time.

Pentium Ha Ha 4: 2 threads at the same time.

 

[Hugh]

I've thought about it.

I have a suggestion for any one who think this is a bad thing, I suggest you watch the Keynote if you can and you will understand the switch.

At first I thought it was a bad thing, but now as I think about it as a programmer this is a great thing. I think we will now start to see great things to come.

Just because you will have a PPC Mac when Apple starts shipping Intel, doesn't mean you will not be able to run that day's software. It looks like Apple is going to push and support a 'fat' type of program. A program that will run on both. Just like they did with the 68k stuff (68k and PowerPC code in the same program where called 'FAT').

As a programmer I think this is going to make things easier to program on the Mac then it is now thus more programs for the Mac.

-Hugh

 

[bosrs1]

Apple press releases have Phil S. saying that while Apple won't provide tech support for folks that put Win on an Intel Mac, Apple won't take any steps to prevent folks from doing that.

He also says that OS X will only run on the Apple Intel machines. So for folks that buy apple, a choice of OS on startup seems like a nice selling point for some.

Not just for some, for alot. I have a cadre of PC friends who were waiting for just something like this.

 

[skellener]

Thank you ofrignya7! Finally someone who understands! Now if only all the other dopes will read your post!

 

[stockscalper]

Well, this is obviously the result of smoking too much crack. Jobs makes the statement Intel chips are cooler and draw less power. Has he ever had a Dell with a P4 on his lap? You can fry and egg on one. And consuming less power? How about a 100 watts for a P4 3.6 that he used in his demonstration versus 21 for the G5. He switches right after Freescale comes out with their dual core (low power) G4 capable of running a separate OS in each core. Not to mention the cool new G5 chips Sony is putting in their PS3. Sony and Microsoft are going in the right direction and Apple, as usual, is headed down the Primrose path to doom.

 

[titaniumducky]

I see consumer computes with 32bit first, then pro line with 64-bit. Later the whole line will be probably updated to 64-bit.
For avarege consumer, really there is no reason to run 64-bit apps or OS. However te change will happen with time as 32-bit architecture is fased out.

Folks, just trust Apple. They have been through 2 transition already, so they know what they are doing, and how to do it. This is how they manadge to stay at the top of technology. Look at Microsoft using ancient stuff, it suck. The only way to have something better in technology is to go with it.

While I'm not disagreeing with your standpoint on the move, you do realize that moving to Intel means that we're using the same core hardware as Microsoft relies on, right?

If their technology is ancient and sucks, so does our new technology...

 

[oskar]

Apple has done a very bad job of explaining this to the average joe who's looking to buy a Mac. Like a lot of people I too was planning to make a Mac purchase soon. Now I think I'll put my money away until next year because I want to be on the right side of the fence if there're making the switch. A lot of people are going feel the same I'm afraid. All those Apple store's are going to be very quite for the next 11 to 12 months.

Apple has a fallback plan in case Mac sales drop: the iPod.

 

[BillHarrison]

It's called optimisation, and can only be done for one type of arch. Doing optimisations for the G5 and G4 is enough of a pain in the butt, I don't want to know how bad the PPC vs x86 optimisation will be.

Secondly, who will want to support a dead end arch?

Every developer with more then two braincells will swich archs so fast it'll hurt.

How many brain cells do you posess? Jan 1st, 2k7 -

Installed PPC base - 90%

Installed Intel base - 10%

And you honestly think that they are going to just say "oh well, forget the rest, lets just release for 10% of the users.

What sense does that make. I dont expect the intel installed base to hit 50% until most likely 2k8. Trust me, it will be the intel guys worrying about getting software, not you.

 

[bosrs1]

While I'm not disagreeing with your standpoint on the move, you do realize that moving to Intel means that we're using the same core hardware as Microsoft relies on, right?

If their technology is ancient and sucks, so does our new technology...

That's the thing though, Intel and AMD are kicking IBMs collective ass. Our technology was already inferior.

 

[1984]

Not really. Wintel machines won't be able to run OS X; it's just as possible that Apple-Intel machines wouldn't be able to run Windows.

Mac OS X will only run on Apple-Intel and Apple-PowerPC hardware. Apple will not officially support running Windows on the new Apple-Intel machines but they will not discourage it either. Straight from the source.

 

[Fender]

I've never bought a Mac and would never imagine myself posting in a Mac forum just a month ago, but I am really enthused now. I think it would be great to be able to dual boot XP and OSX on the same computer. C++ compiling, games on the XP; and more leisure and casual usage on the OS X.

So I totally agree with the "For every one doomsayer there are 5 people who are seriously considering the Mac now" comment someone made up there.

You! We don't serve their kind here! Your droids, they'll have to wait outside.

 

[eVolcre]

THANK YOU!!! My jaw is hanging open reading some of these moronic posts. I second the motion to have all crazy zealots pried from their "now worthless" macs. I'll take one, please.
--DT

You're welcome. I think I've given up on this thread. People just don't seem to get it and we're hearing the same **** go on and on and on.

I can write a business case on why this is a good move and I might end up doing that if a mature site would carry it. Lets face it - the high end systems - you're a niche market. A minority. Leave the APPLE world. You're irrelevent. The Mac zealots, same thing. Leave. You're too small for me to care. People interested in fancy shamncy RISC interfaces or the superiority of a PPC chip as opposed to a x86, same thing ... LEAVE.

Business wise APPLE has to evolve. You cannot target the same "innovator" m arket because they are impossible to please. WHat's the next market to target? The joe blow users. The people who want sey and stylish laptops. Those who want OSX.

The laptop is the wave of the future. If you don't like the APPLE Desktops. Leave. Not a big deal. If you like good design, a good OS and are more of a mainstream user who doesn't give a **** about the techie details that mayu result in a .00001% increase in RISC/CISC/GPU/YZ/123#/ABC ... then stay. It's going to be a fun ride.

Again --- you cannot succeed by targetting a niche. Apple has made the next quantum jump in it's transition or goal to be a mainstream company - and this is it. MS won the OFFICE productivity 'war' (to please the empire group ... ), the next area of growth is in media, in style, in integrating your home computer seamlessly as a life style device - and APPLE is it! This is the future.

As a businessman, I don't mind alienating upto 50% of my current die hard, UNPROFITABLE base who I can never keep happy. If I can gain even 2% of the larger market, I make more money. Simple cost benefit analysis people.

Anyway, I'm done with this head bashing. But, please continue, this is fun to read .. like a car wreck that you just have to look at.

As a favor, I've heard Star Wars analogies, seen JAPANESE empire comparisons will somebody close the geel circle full loop and do a) a Star Trek Story and b) A Dungeons and Dragons analogy. It would make my day complete.

 

[guez]

Armchairs

OK ****er, go back to using Windows. See if I give two *****.

So in closing, all of you armchair CEOs should probably consider the fact that while Steve Jobs is the uncontested master of innovation in personal computing, you are some guy sitting at your computer on a Monday afternoon probably eating a bag of cheetos and waiting for your shift at your crappy minimum wage job.

Only in the Mac community would people think of faster, cooler processors and more readily availble games and hardware a bad thing.

If everyone else is an "armchair CEO," what does that make you? An armchair Church-of-Jobs-cult-member ("I die a little inside each time I read a post on here saying something to the effect of 'I hope Steve did his homework')? An armchair A**hole? Just wondering.

 

[ofrignya7]

Well, this is obviously the result of smoking too much crack. Jobs makes the statement Intel chips are cooler and draw less power. Has he ever had a Dell with a P4 on his lap? You can fry and egg on one. And consuming less power? How about a 100 watts for a P4 3.6 that he used in his demonstration versus 21 for the G5. He switches right after Freescale comes out with their dual core (low power) G4 capable of running a separate OS in each core. Not to mention the cool new G5 chips Sony is putting in their PS3. Sony and Microsoft are going in the right direction and Apple, as usual, is headed down the Primrose path to doom.

Have you ever used a Centrino laptop? Or an M-Series laptop? It's one hell of a lot cooler than my PB G4.

The reason Apple's switching is because of the ROADMAP, not currently available processors. IBM doesn't care enough about Apple to justify sticking with them. They care about producing high-power processors, regardless of size or power consumption. If they had a cooler G5, the G5 case wouldn't have holes in it.