So, regarding Apple’s move to Intel processors, I don’t have terribly strong feelings either way. Except to say that I firmly believe that, when the option presents itself, change is better than not, so I look forward to what the switch brings.
I’ve been reading others’ responses, and I think Todd Dominey has some good things to say.
I agree with him when he says:
1) The move is most likely PowerBook-driven.
By all acounts, there was no way a PowerBook chassis was going to be able to handle the heat generated by the G5 chip, which is already 2 years old. PowerBook sales are stronger than Power Mac sales (plus laptop sales recently surpassed desktop sales within the industry as a whole), so Apple can’t afford to have its strongest product line (aside from the iPods) stagnating while their competitiors’ machines continue to get more powerful.
2) Apple’s preparation for the possibility that this day might come is incredibly impressive. Quoting Todd (emphasis mine):
The most impressive part of the announcement (for me anyway) was that the long-fabled “Marklar” project turned out to be true. This was the code name for a secret workshop in the basement of Cupertino where shadowy developers maintained x86 builds of OS X just in case Apple ever needed to throw the switch.
Now, think about that for a moment — to use an (admittedly cliche) car analogy, this was the equivalent of an auto maker producing alternate versions of a car’s engine, keeping them tuned, bug free and optimized, and locking them away in storage just in case the street versions didn’t fulfill expectations. Or from a web developer’s perspective, producing two, complete, functioning versions of a web site, using one online, and constantly updating the unused internal version with each and every site edit.
But we’re talking about something much bigger and more complex — a full blown operating system, and all the internal applications produced for it. Microsoft can’t seem to get a single version of Longhorn out the door for one platform, while Apple has released multiple versions of OS X for two platforms? That’s not just incredible, it’s stunning. I can only imagine how vindicated and proud Apple’s x86 team must feel.
3) The silliness of comparing magahertz numbers is over — the numbers simply weren’t 100% comparable between the processors, it’s apples and oranges, in my understanding. Now, when Intel makes a faster chip, both Apple and Windows machines can take advantage of it. Although — thinking about it — Apple is likely to stick with their traditional sales strategy, meaning specific models with Apple-chosen processors, updated once or twice a year. But who knows, perhaps Apple will start changing processors more quickly, and a Mac with new specs won’t be quite the event it is these days.