|
Well, it's not _that_ easy. Apple does and will give _some_ information out before the actual release of the first intel Mac, because third party developers have to be able to make sure that their software as well as hardware (!) runs okay with the products. For example, I don't think that Apple actually writes the graphics drivers all by themselves. nVidia and/or ATi (or even intel, should Apple make some use of board-integrated graphics by intel) will have to be contacted well before the introduction of the first intel Macs. Apple wants developers to be ready for the transition, because if Apple makes the jump, consumers must be able to make the jump, too. If it's a disaster, however, and many third party software and hardware (drivers) don't run well or not at all from the beginning, then the transition will be a VERY hard one.
We've heard a lot of people complain about it already here on the forums, and Apple certainly has to renew the Mac users' trust in the platform - even if it goes intel. And going intel they will, as we know.
Most important are certainly the professional users. Also most difficult, I guess. Apple can try and lure professionals to make the jump by releasing machines that are technically attractive. For example, if the intel PowerBook that will replace the last PPC PowerBook offers more battery life and a big speed improvement, that might work. But should the customer's printer or scanner or (gasp!) Adobe CS not work right from the beginning, the customer either won't make the jump or make it and be very disappointed.
Hence the transition kits. Sure, those machines are not what the final machines will be, but they're out for the sole purpose of enabling third party developers to make the transition. We're probably talking software rather than hardware drivers here, but _those_ must be issued as well. And before the release of the intel Macs.
Hence: Some information _will_ drop out. And much information _has_ dropped out already. "Pi$$ing in the wind", "talking out their @rses", call it what you like, doesn't make it right: It's what the readers of rumour sites _want_ to read and talk about. And so they do... The fact that some people are now able to install 10.4.1 8Bxxx on plain vanilla PCs shows that _currently_, Mac OS X is not so far away from running on them. I agree that we all don't know about the final version of OS X for intel Macs, but opinions and guesswork are allowed. So are thoughts about what Apple should or shouldn't do.
__________________ iMac 24" 2.4 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.6.1
MacBook Air 13" 1.6 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 80 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.6.1
Mac mini 1.83 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 80 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.6.1
MacBook nano (Lenovo S10e white) 1.6 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.5.7
iPhone 3GS 32 GB white.
Mac user since 1987, Apple Sales Professional 2009, Apple Product Professional 2007-2009, Apple Certified Support Professional 10.5, Apple Certified Pro Aperture 2 (Level 1) |