Apple goes Intel: It's true!
posted Jun 6th 2005 2:09PM
Steve's just finished up delivering his keynote, but it looks like all those years PC nerds spent debating Apple fanboys about x86 vs. PowerPC performance weren't exactly for nought—at today's Apple WWDC in SF, Jobs declared the PowerPC has been "living a secret double life." We know it's more than just getting 15 "integer perf units" per watt to Intel's 70—like, say, having consistant troubles getting to that magical 3.0GHz marker, or those pesky heat issues. Steve's solution? Go Intel. And just as everyone had been expecting, a secret Intel build of OS X had been kept in house for the past half decade, just waiting for a reason to be loosed upon the world. They expect the full transition to Intel-based machines to be complete by 2007, as speculated, but we're still in the dark about how Mac is going to make OS X beige-box PC-proof—or if they even are.
I feel Raped, i really didnt want this to happen! Goodbye to Apple as we know it!
So does this mean my current dual 2.0ghz G5 will be worth peanuts by the time I sell it next year?
Fishes,
narco.
I wonder what this means for AMD...
Pentium M > G4
Pentium 4 < G5
Just gotta hope those Pentium D's are the business for high end users.....
So, i don't know a whole lot about the technical stuff.... but i own a powerbook...what does the switch mean to me?
Screw Apple. I've stood by them for so many years now and they stab me in the back like this! I am so angry! Hate hate hate. I need a recommendation for a Linux distribution.
Eff me.
I felt the transition was going to be more, how do you say, dramatic. I have only one question left, now who will I fight with over which processor is faster? AMD is out of the question. I now feel as if I'm sucking on the teat of the "establishment".
Why would you feel betrayed?
How could this possibly be bad for the apple customer?
bwahahahahahahah!!!
um. does anybody else see this as a good way to get osx on to windows-based pcs? Gives people more options on what OS they want on their computer. I mean, if Apple release a version of OSX that will on run a PC, how many poeple do you think will switch. There are going to be a lot compiling issues, but there is a lot mainstream software on OSX now.
4 - Daniel
you muppet, Apple will be better off without the idiots like you anyway, so off you go.
This is good news for them and their customers; wider audience, faster specs...
Who knows, maybe it'll prompt M$ to pull their bloody finger out and sort out Longhorn and all their other hundreds of crumby software probs...
Why does everybody get so excited. It doesn't matter anymore what's inside (despite Intel's marketing campaign), as long as the OS X and all the apps run and we get the same fine Industrial Design you have a bona fide Macintosh.
On top of that we get industrial strength CPUs that actually have a roadmap and can actually be used for laptops. PowerPC was nice while it lasted but it's an industry joke now.
blasphemy, however, i do hope that apple beige-box proofs the x86 version of OS X. Or even, is Intel just going to produce a Power PC based chip? we will have to wait and see for this all. Alot is still left in the fog right now i think.
I think a lot of people are going to make ridiculous thoughts of leaving Apple. Although I'm really confused right now about the ins and outs of how a switch is going to happen, generally it's going to be the same Apple, just powered by a different chip.
What bothers me is the seemingly obvious sacrifice in power. Look at the performance claims by the G5. How is Intel going to even come close now? Didn't they hit a wall, too?
don't take prejudge and wait until the prove show up.
but will the new os and futre apps work with current chips or are they now worthless?
Correction -- OS X has led a double life, not the PowerPC.
OS X for PC hardware? I hope so!
ok, so what effect is this going to have on apple computers, will it really be that bad for the performance of macs?
No AMD? That is the bad news here and not the transition to x86. I feel bad for the Apple fans. I guess they have to drop their Apple Mac's and go back to pre-computer times. Typewriter it is guys.
pfft. I'm divided on the issue. I think that there are a lot of advantages on this move. But I'm against it on principal. RISC is better than CISC! The least apple could have done is gone AMD.
On the question of PC proofing, I'm sure apple's hardware will run windows. The question is will normal beige boxes run mac os x. My gut says no, since apple is still a hardware company (though, I suppose that might be changing).
On the plus side - advantages, I'll be able to dual boot should I need it. I'll be able to run windows applications in Mac OS X, using a recompiled (for Mac OS X) wine - (the current hurdle for wine is getting a decent emulation speed of x86 instructions on the ppc chip - and this would change that).
But AAAAAARGH!
#10 (keith) - My thoughts exactly. I'm pretty sure the architecture will be different somehow...
number 11 what are u talking bout they said x86
All I want to know is how close will this bring us to being able to run Windows apps in OSX? I realize they need the Windows API's but hopefully a hardware based emulator comes out or something. That would be cool.
On a second note: the latest generation of Intel chips have really sucked compared to AMD. I wonder if the new "Intel based" OSX will run on AMD as well? It's all X86 right?
I think this is a great move. Wouldn't Apple fans like to see more people using the Mac OS? Who cares what chip it's on. I think it will make computing in general more exciting for the next 3-4 years.
Brizor, why would Stevie J show the world Mac OSX on x86 architecture if Intel were going to release a powerPC based processor. Its gonna be an x86 architecture system running macs from now, the only "fog" is whether the "Marklar" will rely on other mac independent components and not just the processor to stop PC users installing it.
I personally see this is a bold move which had to happen one day and when better to do it when apple is invincible!!!
I'd have rather seen them go with AMD. At least AMD is *doing* something with the x86 architecture and making it better, AND they have a 64-bit chip that works.
I don't think Intel will be making a RISC based chip (do they even know how?), Steve even said that they've had OS X running on the x86 for the last 5 years. So, how long until we can start building our own Macs? What about Apple "controlling" the desktop to avoid conflicts like Windows has to?
I agree with #12. What happened to Apples claims of being the fastest desktop in the world. Does Steve Jobs even pay attention to his past presentations about how fast the G5 was compared to the P4. Oh well the media coverage can't be bad, but right now I feel like Julius Caeser.
What a strange world we live in. Who would expect to see Microsoft distributing Mac development kits and PowerPC processors and Apple switching to Intel chips, all announced in the same year?
What this really amounts to is a *major* snub for IBM. Jobs basically said IBM's Power roadmap sucked the big one. Scary!
Meanwhile, back at the ranch. Mac fans, don't worry. You'll still get lots of metal-cased goodness on your desktop, or creamy lacquered laptops. The 'Intel Inside' sticker peels right off, and then you won't know the difference (except the price should be lower!).
I am a developer. I really like the G5 chip but lets all be honest here. IBM is not delivering. There is no 3GHz G5 and they are not close to getting the G5 into a powerbook.
I love Apple hardware, but I love their software more. And this is a needed change to preserve the OS. I imagine that the G5 supply is only going to get worse with 3 going into every xbox.
XCode 2.1 will build binaries for both platforms. Maybe Apple will keep the G5 in some of its high end systems. They have more options now than ever before!
Why would loyal Apple users that have been dedicated to their battle to convert Windows users be upset that perhaps the door is open to actually getting people to come over to OS X without having to spend a fortune on over-priced hardware?
Better performing iBooks and Powerbooks! I could care less about desktops.
21. no need for hardware emulator ...if almost identical just need simplier software layer...
beeter question how long til cracke version of OSX appears online
I just bought a dual 2.0 g5...
but...
i plan on buying an apple laptop next year :)
i dont really care as long as the processors are not amd...i have a thing against amd...
gave me poor performance the first time...i dont want poor performance again...
This doesn't bode well for customers wanting to buy an Apple now since it will be obsolete by next year. I've got a bad feeling about this. Will Apple be able to get by until next year with news like this???
Am I the only one that finds it moderately weird that people take it personally when a company makes a switch? It's not like they dissed my mom. They switched chipmakers.
"Does Steve Jobs even pay attention to his past presentations about how fast the G5 was compared to the P4."
Sure, the G5 is probably faster than the P4... but Apple isn't looking at today's specs. Remember, they're planning on really rolling things out for 2007. Apple probably looked at both IBM's tech roadmap and Intel's tech roadmap, and liked Intel's better. I think the G5 not being laptoppable had a big part in this.
The G5 might be the fastest processor in 2005; but will it be in 2007? Doubtful. I'd wager Intel is going to provide something pretty spiffy to make it worthwhile.
#1, #5, I feel the same way. Why Apple, why!? I don't want OS X running on any computer other than Apple. Why must you betray IBM and other Apple followers? Why can't you just find ways to improve PowerPC prossesors?
And about #2, What will happen to other Macs are we just suposed to buy new computers in two years, or put off buying one until then?
You hurt me Apple, you hurt me bad.
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.
You guys...this is brilliant!
Apple on Intel will further kill Microshit, and Leopard will seal Billy boys coffin once and for all!!
Also, Jobs never said it was going to be Intel ONLY. He said there will be both now and that the transition should be complete in 2007. However, by then, if IBM delivers, trust me...we will still see G5 CPUs in Macs!!
This is going to sky rocket Apple's market share!! Buy Stock NOW!!
Ok does everyone forget that not so long ago Apple used Intel chips. There was a huge outcry back then when apple switched to IBM. Who says the new intel chip will be x86 in nature, it could something totally new in nature. Apple was all but dead before the powerpc came along and that had nothing to do with intel and all to do with Apple. Apple is just shaking things up and keeping it fresh.
I think it's great news. Current hardware you own still works as well today as it did yesterday. Software built with fat binaries will run on Intel or PPC. Rosetta will deal with software that isn't updated. No one gets hurt. The Mac OS is still fantastic and secure. And for the first time in *ages* we're free of constant worry about the future of our CPU supplier's willingness to manufacture for our small market segment.
If you were using a Mac out of love for PPC and not out of love for the software you actually interface with, then I suppose you can be angry about this, but I doubt there are lots of people out there who fit that description.
Don't cry for IBM. All those CPUs that won't go into Apples anymore will just go into PlayStation3, Xbox 360 and possibly Nintendo Revolution as well. IBM blocked Intel from the console market, so Intel knocked IBM off Apple.
I think IBM may get the better of the deal. Sony will sell a lot more PS3's than Apple will sell Pentium-powered Mac Minis. Granted, those aren't PowerPC chips, but it's not like IBM won't be manufacturing CPUs for *someone*.
More to the point, does the move to an Intel-based signal that Apple is transitioning from hardware company to software company/MP3 player maker? Will Dell be making PCs capable of running OS X by 2009? Apple sure sold a lot of copies of Tiger in the last month, after all...
i agree with Andrew Kaufmann..
with intel rolling out their dual core systems (which i personally think kicks the g5's butt...), i think intel will provide apple with better performance, considering that apple does a good job with keeping systems cool...
its more like a perfect match up...
intel with power/heat..apple with design and cooling :)
Ryan V you have to get over the AMD poor performance thing. That was back when the K6 was available. Today every Athlon64 X2 kicks Intels P4D a** when benchmarked.
It seems to me fairly clear that the Pentium for mac is locked in a way or another. The developer kit ($999) is composed by Mac OSX for Intel AND a 3.2 Pentium processor. there will be no use to buy the processor if it is not modified.
my .02
Come on guys. For many years Apple has been good exactly for that - letting the users create, instead of bothering with software issues. 8+3 filenames. Config.sys. Disk partitioning. All these were transparent to the (normal) user.
As for me, I don't bother which CPU in in the Mac. And this is the way it *should* be for every OS, imho.
Remember this is supposed to take place in 1 year from now. New chips will be out. I have a feeling Apple is going to still be running "closed" systems. I think this means with out a hack OS X will not run on any old Intel P4 based system. I am not sure how they will try to do this other than some kind of motherboard chip like Apple's own Northbridge.
I hope that this means to me is that MS will come out with support for the apple systems (why not all MS cares about is selling software) or a hack will come out that lets me dual boot into Windows and OS X. I would love to run OS X for dev work and to still boot windows to play games. I can just see it now; a 15" Powerbook that lets me play all my windows games on it.
Dave Winer just posted that it WILL NOT run on garden variety Dels, etc. However, there will be nothing preventing one from also installing their copy of Windows. A true dual system. The security of Mac OSX and the games of the PC...One year and counting before the major switch-a-roo starts. For us Mac people, no need to fuss, it's seamless (or so they say).
I do hope intel does do something to make this switch "worthwhile". Maybe something by the name of the Pentium MICROSOFT Share Stealer (PMS for Short). That is a sticker I would be proud to sport on my powerbook PMS. However knowing Apple, that sticker may end up laser etched into the surface.
Ok, first off, who cares what processor is in the box? It's the OS that matters. Secondly, why is everyone worried about the resell value of existing macs? Who the heck buys a computer as an investment? Lastly, and most importantly.... will I be able to dual boot WinXP and OSX? That would be really, really cool.
Hey, for all you guys complaining about the lack of new hardware rollouts. WWDC is for mostly software developers, they don't focus on new hardware...just the architecture inside. Wait till macworld comes around in August I believe, and you'll see some new kick-ass products!
good linux distros for a beginner: ubuntu, knoppix
added bonus: many linux distros run on intel, amd, powerpc, and many other flavors of hardware
portability: priceless.
i use powerpc hardware w/ os x at home and at work, it will be interesting to see if apple will let us install os x where we want (i.e. on existing intel hardware). that actually would be really great: imagine a lovely p7010d with linux AND os x without emulation, yum.
funny sidenote: do you remember the stuff about torvalds using the powerpc hardware with linux running on it? i wonder if he'll switch away again...
frankly my opinion (and my main machine for 3.5 years was a first generation powerbook g4 and i use a dual g5 tower at work): fantastic to have all kinds of os'es on all kinds of hardware.
LOL, the posting frenzy broke Slashdot! =)
Welcome to the dark side!
hee, hee, hee!
Just look at this image: http://images.apple.com/uk/powermac/performance/images/photoshop20050427.jpg
it just shows you what we could be in for. Now that the powerpc is in all next-gen consoles surely it will get much more development and get faster, smaller, and cooler. The G5 is very modern and has plenty of room to expand whereas P4 has gone to it upper limits now. Why apple? Why
From CNET:
After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."
However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac."
> This doesn't bode well for customers wanting to
> buy an Apple now since it will be obsolete by
> next year.
EVERY computer you buy now will be obsolete next year.
It will be interesting to see how Apple explains to their customer that Intel-CPUs do not stink that much as they tried to tell us during the last decade ;)
Well about time. All the talk about how the Mac was faster than the PC. BS. If you compare a dual processor Apple to a single processor PC, yeah it will be faster. Plus all the test were done using Pentium chips not Itanium or Xeon, the fastest intel chipsets. But the fastest machines on the planet were created by now (unfortunately) defunct Liebermann Inc. and were created using Intel processors. I think this is where Apple can really carve their niche. Lieberman was a PC users dream machine and I considered them an Apple of the Intel users. Check out Lieberman's web site to see some pictures of what I am talking about www.go-l.com
i love how people like #37 will say "trust me" ... as if anyone knows who you are, cares who you are, or would give you one ounce of trust.
Wait! Is this true... will every new Mac ALSO have the potential of being a Windows PC. Did Apple just become a producer of Wintel computers?!
Does anyone else think the Mac Mini clone wasn't part of this plan?
this totally kills my speculation that the intel based mac-mini would basically be a max os media center edition dealie. damn you all. damn you all to hell!!
#49/whiplash:
I care about the resale value of my Mac because it pretty much was an investment. It cost me $2,500, and for the past several Macs I've owned, I usually sold it for 75% of what I originally paid for it. If Apple changes things completely, I won't be able to get as much as I normally would. I understand the IT market (things get better, they change, etc.) but I still have the right to bitch about how much I'll get for my computer.
Fishes,
narco.
LoL this is the most frickin halarious thing ever. Looks like the apple fanboys are getting a taste of disillusionment :D. You're like the catholic church, you've lost everything you stand for muhahahahahaaha. Personally I don't give a crap but omg... you guys entertain me :D
If you read the Intel press release Microsoft has already said they will support Apple with a release of Office that works on both PowerPC chips and Intel chips.
About the whole Intel does not know how to produce a RISC chip take a close look at how a P4 works the internals are a RISC chip. At the start of the P4 pipeline the CISC instructions are broken into pieces and from there on the chip looks like and acts like a RISC chip.
Quit crying ya bunch of candy-assed pansies, this is nothing to get your trucker hats all crooked over.
It's just a CPU, so STFU, take a deep breath and repeat this "I am an asshat, I was wrong the PC users were right" Repeat as needed.
Lord god jesus, please let me run OSX tiger on my HP laptop.
I'm so fscking tired of this windows ghetto...
Steve Jobs needs to go. He's done his magic for the past 8 years or so, but it's time for him to go. He's ruining Apple with his heavy-handed dictatorial "management" style.
I think the G5 (PPC 970) has way more potential than the P4. It wasn't really given a chance -- it was still a baby as far as processors go. The P4 is so bogged down with too much backwards-compatible baggage and mega-length pipelines.
Maybe Apple and Intel can come up with a P5 (or whatever they'll call it -- maybe skip P5 and call it a P6 to be a "higher number" than even the G5, or drop the ancient Pentium moniker altogether) that's more forward-looking than backwards, then maybe they'll be on the right track...
Or maybe the G5 or G6 (or whatever IBM would come up with) will leapfrog Intel's offerings and Apple will have MAJOR egg on its face!
Either way (PowerPC or Pentium), having developers make fat binaries of apps is good for Apple and Mac users -- no matter what processor road Apple goes down, we'll have apps that will work.
But the Intel thing could be good for emulation -- Windows could actually run on Intel hardware, so the emulation software would just have to get through the OS to get to that instead of needing to emulate the processor and everything. And I bet someone somewhere would find a way to be able to just run Windows apps right on Mac OS X -- isn't there already something like this for Linux???
You're like the catholic church, you've lost everything you stand for
--
Huh? Until they start shipping WIndows boxes, Macs will always be the best.. this is totally no big deal.. faster Macs..
Now.. as for the people freaking out about losing their investement..
here's how it works..
two versions of OS 10.5 leopard.. one for PPC, one for Intel... you install that, and your NEXT computer will be an intel mac..
whats the big deal.. 10.5 will have two versions, since apple is a hardware company, your next hardware purchase will come preinstalled w the correct OS on Intel.
Get it, wear it.
http://www.cafepress.com/compapple
Mac clones.
I'm sure Apple has done studies in the past on how much their Mac sales would decline versus how much their OS sales would increase if they allowed clones. They actually experimented with it in the market for a little while. Mac OS was much less superior in those days. The Macs I used in college were so unstable, and they had complete control over the hardware. So now that the OS is inherently more stable, I see fewer reasons for them to stick with that policy.
If you make good software and *popular* hardware (my iMac G5 is in the shop right now), then why not compete on both fronts? I think this is a step in that direction. MSFT must be kicking themseleves right now for bailing them out a few years back.
For me, this is good news. Any way I can get a powerful Powerbook running OS X works for me. If IBM can't supply the goods, then so be it. I just hope Apple sticks to its plan of not letting OSX run on non-Apple hardware. One more thing, the 3-year AppleCare plan on my Rev. A 12" PB runs out just in time for the new Intel joints to come out. Perfect!
My INTC portfolio thanks you.
I'm going to buy myself a 12 inch powerbook in a few days. I have a certain fear that is creeping into my heart about a certain DRM technology that is going to be in intel chips in a year or two. I'm not saying that I'm a totally illegal person, or maybe I am, but I don't want the computer hardware making it harder for me to do whateva the hell I want to do. You never know what's going to happen in the DRM world next 2 years. And what the hey, you can always save up for a new one and the current powerbooks will last a while, in five years you'll still be able to use the internet etc. and less intensive stuff on it.
It's obvious:
Longhorn: delayed until 2007
Apple switch to Intel: 2007
Microsoft: owns a large stake in Apple
Microsoft & Apple: threatened by Linux
Hence:
Longhorn = OS XI
Beige boxes don't have OpenFirmware do they? So they won't run OS X.
I'm adding my thoughts to this page right here. It'll get formatted better when I get around to it, but grr.
Please keep in mind, that I am an Apple Developer and have been for the last 10 years.
http://vinay.afternight.org/apple-intel.html
Dear Apple,
We win.
signed...Wintel
That Aopen machine that everyone got so worked up about last week...It IS the new mac mini :)
P.S How will Apple justify their high prices now?
Personally, I think this is a dumb move-- the X86 REALLY does suck. But, on another note.... I'd sell any Red Hat stock I had, if I were you. LINUX, for sure, is toast now.
Here's the next Mac Mini:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000510045490/
Sorry, but considering AMD processors are so much better I doubt I can see any real performance benifit with Intel. The recent round of reviews for the Pentium D were terrible comapred to the AMD Dual Cores. Clearly, Intel has been slipping in the processor arena and AMD is mopping up. Intel has significant issues with heat and we were forced in our datacenter to swap out Intel machines for AMD. It was that or spend a ton of cash on better air conditioners.
Feel free to read the reviews yourself:
1. Tomshardware.com
2. Anandtech.com
3. Pcmagazine.com
Thanks Apple, but no thanks.
I agree with sadmacfan - AMD seemed to be a more 'Apple' thinking sort of company. I've heard rumours that Apple were a bit annoyed that a lot of IBM's development budget seemed to be directed at the Cell chip which was not the direction Apple wanted to take, and Intel were able to seal the deal with the hard-wired DRM in the new chips (iTunes is taking heat from record companies for the ease of which AAC can be stripped, and as Apple may be developing iMovies the movie bosses would definately call for 'piracy proof' (yeah, right) guarantees.
#72:
Good points except:
The switch to Intel begins in 2006 not 2007.
Microsoft doesn't own a large stake in Apple anymore.
and
Linux never threatened Apple's core users at all, and it was barely felt by MS.
Well, at least you got the part about Longhorn right...until they decide to delay it again.
#65: Steve Jobs needs to go.
That is one of the dumbest comments made on this board. You're right, the guy has no vision. Forget iPods, that idea was just stupid and didn't revolutize the music industry. You're right. Discussion closed.
er, #68 i mean. sorry.
"Dave Winer just posted..."
Winer is an asshat.
I claim today, June 06 2005 as the Death of Apple Computers.
Their new company line: "Think conformity"
They have sold their soul to the devil, and shot themselves in the foot.
Apple should be moving to AMD, and they still can of course. AMD Opterons and Athlon 64's are more powerful, better for digital content (Apple's bread and butter) and already use the AMD Developed Hypertransport bus connection that the G5 uses now. Meaning less development time for them. Hypertransport is also loads faster then Intel's shared 800mhz FSB. Not to mention the extra memory speed by having on-board memory controllers.
Check out: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2436
BTW, if anyone is wondering, contrary to their claim: Intel is not the largest chip maker in the world, Frito-Lay is.
Anyone care to part with their G4 powerbooks for a good price? ;-)
How can you say intel has not done anything for x86, haev you seen the new mobil chips? They are frickin amazing. They make AMD look bad, crap they make pentium 4's look bad. You the centrino chips pentium m.
Big picture:
Apple wants to transistion to becoming a media company, not a computer maker. DRM Pentiums=movie clearance from big studios=iflix movie store. Stream that from desktop to HD via h.264 airport express=big money for Apple. They buy sony. Who cares about Word compatibility or friggin' WIDGETS?!?
"I care about the resale value of my Mac because it pretty much was an investment. It cost me $2,500, and for the past several Macs I've owned, I usually sold it for 75% of what I originally paid for it."
I hope you don't work for my brokerage firm.
Hardware becomes obsolete. I didn't whine when my $3,000 10-year old Dell became obsolete 7 years ago. This was the end of the line between Apple and IBM. IBM's Microprocessor Division has staked it's future on game consoles, not PCs. If you don't like it just switch to Wintel and stop whining!
That's how crazy Steve Jobs is...he'll port the whole line just to get back at AOpen for cloning the Mac Mini
Mac OSX could actually be pretty nice on Intel-based hardware. Faster and cheaper hardware, plus two mouse buttons out of the box!
Although I'm pretty sure that they'll try to lock down the hardware that OSX runs on...if Apple had to try to support as many system configurations MS, their shiny illusion of a perfect computing harmony OS would go down the tubes.
whoooooo, finially i can dump windows, without buying a new pc, ha ha ha. But seriously, i feel the pain of the Apple faithful, but hey welcome to the world of corporate business, where everyones just waiting to be shafted.
The way i see it, is there are alot more people without macs then there with macs, if half of the 3% of Global computer users who are current mac users get pissed off, ok, what about the 80%+ who use windows(insert insane profits potential here). I agree it is stupid, it removes apples "idividualality" in the pc market, but hey what are those angry mac users gonna do, switch?
To all you people saying "why is Apple doing this" because "AMD is better than Intel" or "G5 is already better than x86" -- if you RTFA you'd know that Steve said Intel's processor roadmap looks better than IBM's. He's looking into future technology and you idiots are comparing today's.
Running OS X, but still being able to play all the PC games = heaven.
Maybe Apple will end up building something like the old SGI Visual Workstation 320 and 540s. Intel proc with a completely different architecture.