Ok, if you guys have read the specs on the PS3 and XBOX 360, Next Gen 2 is what I'll call them. They use Power PC Processors, and since gaming has higher demand, and IBM is having troubles producing enough chips, Apple had to get out. Now this is all in my opinion and knowing what's happened in the past and all that, so I'll continue. Now Apple says they moved for the better, and its true, not having to have people wait for PowerPC Processors to be developed, speed, etc. I did learn about one thing that I wish IBM could produce more or at least hand tips on the technology for AMD or Intel. Synergistic Processing, where you have different SPE's (8 for the PS3) that delegates itself to managing the processes. Apple would probably benefit from this for XServer, if they don't already user it. Considering its a Cell Processor aspect. Now I know I'm going on and on, but Apple had to make a decision and passed it off as something that when the time came they'd have to do. But did they lie? I mean PowerPC Cells are up to 3.2GHz, so I dunno this is all just cramming in my head. Ok Steve himself said, that there would be a time that came where Apple would have to go to x86 processors, which they are. They had the first 64-bit processor for the desktop in the world. Steve is making the right move, yes. So why all the sudden want for gaming for PowerPC Processors? Is it cause IBM knows how to do cells and are the only ones? But what about the XBO... XBX360 uses cell, oh ok. So did Apple know IBM's new developing technology, and was a converge of all companies exchanging an ideal business market. Which did IBM go behind one or the other or was this a total all out converge? You guys are going to read this and say: he's an idiot. But I'm trying to cram all this down and understand the flock towards IBM PowerPC processors. Of course they're better, but whats with all the other gaming companies moving to them. Sony had their own processor, why not for PS3? XBox, why not Intel? I don't understand! Help me through this guys.