[fryke]

You're exactly right, Sunnz, I'd say. It was mainly the notebooks where the issue of performance/watt was worst and most noticeable. Of course, in the past we've seen other transitions. I'd say the intel one was the easiest by _far_. I just notice that I'm repeating myself already. (You know, that *VERY* long post by me above...)

ebykm: I think the whole subject of hardware having been much better in the (long gone) past does _not_ really have to do with this PPC2intel transition. I'd say it's worth its own thread even. The quality downward-spiral in my opinion started with the Performas of the PPC time, the clones back then in combination with the switch to PowerPC from 68K, when the OS just wasn't ready for that jump. But it's an overall "computer market" thing, really. Back then, Apple took more time to carefully pick and choose which suppliers, which technologies to use. Part of why Macs were incompatible with generic PC hardware was that Apple made _better_, though incompatible, choices. However: This didn't exactly _work_ very well for them. Apple could've died back then! People (and I'm talking about the 95% who _didn't_ buy Apple hardware back then) didn't _want_ to pay for the quality. Computers had become "normal" business. So Apple had to react. And they did. The iMac was inexpensive AND good at the same time. No SCSI, yep, but it wasn't for the SCSI-wanting crowd, anyway. No LocalTalk, no Serial Ports - but USB. Apple did the right thing back then. Because I rather have this MacBook right now - even *if* quality control should have been better - than no Apple products at all, because Apple had died in beauty. (That's a saying in German, not sure if it exists in English. To die in beauty, an attack on someone's failure to see that change is needed, maybe even at the cost of some once-important ideals.)