What I believe to be the truth of "Marklar" First let me say that I have been following the, mostly scarce, information blurbs concerning this supposed version of Mac OS X. From what I have heard, this is a version of Mac OS X,... refitted shall we say, for the Intel-CISC processor architecture. All of the articles I have read all speculate that markler is some type of PowerPC exit strategy. The theory goes that if the PowerPC chip ever becomes so dated as to threaten the very existence of Apple as a computer company, they would use Markler to move as quickly as possible (which is to say not very) to the CISC architecture and take their chances in the Wintel world. I guess the theory for Apple in this scenario is that if the PowerPC ever got into such a state, they could be no worse off. I'll agree that the Markler effort probably was begun with this is mind and is probably still being pitched to the handful of developers working on it as this, but I believe it's true purpose will, if it hasn't already, shift in light of IBM's recent commitment to the PowerPC chip. I believe that Markler will indeed see the light of day, probably in the next 12 months, but NOT as some type of competition to Windows on the PC desktop. Let us not forget that the Windows and Mac OS X desktop operating systems are really nothing more than the cheese that gets customers in the door. For Apple, customers that spend money on hardware. For Microsoft, customers that buy more software,...from Microsoft. The real hard cash comes from Corporate clients. To cut to the chase, the real money is in servers. While Apple is making a profit on Macintosh hardware and Mac OS X Client, I am sure they would like nothing more than to sell as many copies of Mac OS X server as they sell of Mac OS X Client. This is evident in their, extremely intelligent, decision to have a very simple licensing plan with a quick cap ($500 for 10 or $1000 for unlimited). As I'm sure you've guessed by now, I believe Markler is being positioned to be Mac OS X Server for Intel Compatible (I just invented that, BTW. Probably won't get any credit though,...seeing as how both names are already copywrited and all). Think about it, this is the perfect solution for all those involved. First, the standard for Intel compatible servers is quickly shifting from Windows NT based operating systems (NT/2000/2003) to Linux based operating systems. Because of this, almost all server side applications are first or simultaneously developed for UNIX (to allow them to quickly move to Linux and the already established UNIX servers) and Windows server. This plays into right into Apple's hand as it allows them to due to Linux essentially what Linux has done to other UNIX's. I would say eat them alive if that didn't sound unpleasant so I'll just say move in on their market share. Linux did this because it was free and virtually immune from becoming dated do to it's open source nature. While not free, Mac OS X Server is similarly immune from becoming dated due to the open source nature of it's core, Darwin, and the profitable nature of it's client offspring (Mac OS X desktop), even if that client is on a different platform. This would also explain Apple's seeming overnight interest in X11, as this is the main GUI for Linux. If Apple can integrate X11 into the Aqua GUI as least as well as it does the classic environment (and I think it could be integrated much better sense the X11 libraries are an extension to the Aqua GUI rather than a completely separate GUI attempting to run simultaneously), then it would be possible to compile current Linux/X11 based applications on Mac OS X Server with little more difficulty than Solaris or any other X11 enabled UNIX. Yes, pure Aqua would look better, but Aqua/X11 conversion would be perfectly acceptable for a server that might not see a monitor for weeks or months after it is initially setup. Sale cannibalization would really not be an issue as the clients who would be interested in using Mac OS X Server in lieu of Linux probably would not be in the market for Xserve anyway, opting instead for the larger servers sold on the Intel Compatible market (such as 8 and 16 processor equipped models). In fact, using Markler as Mac OS X Server, instead of Mac OS X Client, really gives Apple the best of both worlds. It allows them to market on of their most profitable per copy products to some of the largest consumers in the world. To top it all off, they do not in any serious way endanger their desktop hardware sales. This approach also allows Apple to avoid the application problems that ultimately killed the original Rhapsody operating system as Mac OS X server depends almost exclusively on open source server software (Apache, etc..) can be readily moved between the two architectures with little to know modification. Most users of Mac OS X server do not add anything other than security updates and use it as is. This would truly be a win win situation for all those involved, save Linux.