I watched Job's keynote at the developers conference yesterday. The key decision wasn't the past performance of the PowerPC processors--it was their future plans. IBM scored at "5" on performance per watt and Intel at "70" for their projected plans--so it was a no brainer. Plus there has yet to be a G5 for laptops. What was wild was he was demonstrating some of the new widgets on Mac OS 10.4 and other features on this huge projection screen. Later in the keynote when he announced the plan for Intel, he shows the "About this Mac" splash screen and the whole demo was run on an Intel chip. Every version of Mac OS X has secretly had an Intel compiled version for the last 5 years.
I just hope it makes Macs cheaper. Apparently Microsoft office will be able to run native on the new boxes. On Jun 7, 2005, at 9:38 AM, Alex Stanley wrote: > And, yet, PC's and Macs are still pretty much neck and neck in terms > of performance. In fact, dual proc Intel Xeons beat a dual proc AMD > and squished the dual G4 like a bug; the Mac came in dead last by a > large margin. The G5's faster front side bus speed evened things out, > but it makes perfect sense for Apple to switch to a CPU maker whose > primary business is making CPU's and whose procs are advancing in > power far more quickly than IBM's. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
