# Why go Intel?



## idhk (Nov 25, 2005)

Hey guys,

Sorry to bother with this question, but why Apple wants to go Intel when the OSX would still be locked to the Apple hardware. What would be the benefit? I know that the current PPC is very very good CPU.

Thanks


----------



## Johndoemanny34362 (Nov 25, 2005)

Intel CPU's are much faster, cheaper and heat effiecient than the PPC. Also, intel has 80% of all processors, and has a large share of the market, so Apple chose them over AMD. I would have liked to see AMD be the choice since intel sucks, but it's about money, not performance. The osx will probably have an update making it compatible.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 25, 2005)

the PowerPC architecture, apparently, will not go much faster.  the next generation of Intel chips will.  it was all about a 10-year or so road map.

it was a list of attributes that appealled to the apple bosses, mainly including heat/power efficiency that the current ppc chips will never have. the R+D at intel will probably be much better than both IBM and AMD in the coming years, as a reaction to amd's recent successes and also as ibm are set up for the next few years producing console chips.  supply was probably another reason.

The OS has apparently always been made in both PPC and intel builds, so the x86 version will be ready for the first set of intel macs.  it's also, according to tech heads who've tested it, a much faster os on x86.

goody.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 25, 2005)

SuperTyphoon said:
			
		

> Intel CPU's are much faster, cheaper and heat effiecient than the PPC. Also, intel has 80% of all processors, and has a large share of the market, so Apple chose them over AMD. I would have liked to see AMD be the choice since intel sucks, but it's about money, not performance. The osx will probably have an update making it compatible.



OS X is already compatible it started as neXtstep and OpenStep, which ran natively on both PPC and x86, the main reason though for the switch is because of mobile chips.  Apple knows that Mobile computing is the future and the G4 is not that great when it comes to power consumption.  

Intel has 3 new chips coming out next year, the Conroe, Merom and Woodcrest, all 64-bit, 65-nanometer ones (current CPUs in a G5/G4 are still 95-nanometer i believe) and Dual Core.  Which adds to better battery life and more power.

Also Intel makes the ARM chips found in all PDAs, Newton II maybe??


----------



## dmetzcher (Nov 25, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> Also Intel makes the ARM chips found in all PDAs, Newton II maybe??


I can't tell you in words how much I would love Apple to come back to the handheld market. With the Palm OS going away and being replaced (on Palm's own handhelds) with MS PocketPC, I've been in a state of depression and can't even pick up my handheld lately. Apple should target this market and release a REAL handheld OS.


----------



## CharlieJ (Nov 25, 2005)

SuperTyphoon said:
			
		

> Intel CPU's are much faster, cheaper and heat effiecient than the PPC. Also, intel has 80% of all processors, and has a large share of the market, so Apple chose them over AMD. I would have liked to see AMD be the choice since intel sucks, but it's about money, not performance. The osx will probably have an update making it compatible.


That is not the point if we go over to intel cpu's it will ruin apple


----------



## Satcomer (Nov 25, 2005)

As long as during Mac commercials (as few as there are) don't have that stupid Intel chime at the end of the commercial.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 25, 2005)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> As long as during Mac commercials (as few as there are) don't have that stupid Intel chime at the end of the commercial.



Yes, and no damn Intel inside stickers too.

Going intel won't ruin apple, it will probably ruin microsoft.  Nobody will know the difference of the Intel-Macs and the PowerPC-Macs until they look at the system profiler, just like what Steve said himself.  We all thought it was a G5, but it was a P4 3.6 GHz in the tower.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Nov 25, 2005)

Satcomer said:
			
		

> As long as during Mac commercials (as few as there are) don't have that stupid Intel chime at the end of the commercial.


I don't think we have anything to worry about there.  After all, when was the last time we saw an Apple desktop or laptop hardware commercial?  The 1st gen G5?


----------



## jhawk28 (Nov 26, 2005)

I don't think Apple would have gone with AMD because Intel makes a better chip. AMD provides better value for the dollar, but have you ever seen how hot they get? It takes alot of fans to keep them cool too. My Dell at work is as quiet as can be while my AMD at home is quite loud.

Joshua


----------



## idhk (Nov 26, 2005)

Well I hope Apple knows better.

Thanks for the feedback guys.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 27, 2005)

idhk said:
			
		

> Well I hope Apple knows better.
> 
> Thanks for the feedback guys.



Trust Steve, he knows what he's doing.  Intel has been the backup for a while, hence the 2 versions of OS X.  Remember what Obi-Wan said to Luke "Trust in the Force", thats what we all need to do, trust in Steve and the developers of our apps.


----------



## Quicksilver (Nov 27, 2005)

RGrphc2 said:
			
		

> Yes, and no damn Intel inside stickers too.




Yeah. We will probably get "Mactel Inside" 

I think the transition has somthing to do with the future of mobile computing. Desktops in the home seem to be fading away, at least at my place. We havent used desktop for over 4 years here.

Tablets, PDA's and other small computer devices may be the next big thing. If it is done right! "not like current PDA's/Tablets are now" but much more slim and fun. PDA's are currently boring little things, and tablets are too awkward to use outside the home.

However if there was a Tablet x PDA it would be interesting to see. The Newton 2100 was a great size. If such a device had some kind of mobile abilities for internet, email, iTunes, SMS, calendar, games, video talk. It would rock! I loved how the Newton optionally came with that little keyboard, and you could turn it into a laptop sort of thing. What a device it was!

So my take is that we might see some new stuff next year. What was the last real new hardware introduction from apple? it's the iPod right? or was it the iSight? that was a while ago too.



.


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 27, 2005)

Quicksilver said:
			
		

> Yeah. We will probably get "Mactel Inside"
> 
> I think the transition has somthing to do with the future of mobile computing. Desktops in the home seem to be fading away, at least at my place. We havent used desktop for over 4 years here.
> 
> ...



Apple has the underlying technology to make a tablet built into OS X with Ink, it's there it is waiting to be used.  If they were to do a tablet right, make it an Option for the Powerbooks a 200 to 300 dollar option.

It's the truth though Apple knows the portable G4 chip can only go so far, and mobile computing is the way of the future, more people are living in apartments and do not have room for the tower, desk, monitor, speakers etc.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Nov 27, 2005)

they patented a tablet form factor design last year. it was all over the rumour sites.


----------



## MisterMe (Nov 27, 2005)

Tablets and PDA's? And after those, horseshoes and buggy whips?


----------



## Carlo (Nov 27, 2005)

CJ MAC OSX IPOD said:
			
		

> That is not the point if we go over to intel cpu's it will ruin apple



Not many people buy a mac because it has a PPC cpu in it. Intel make fantastic CPU's these days, they are the market leader for a good reason (unlike microsoft). 

They will offer cheaper and faster mac portables.

IN steve we trust


----------



## RGrphc2 (Nov 27, 2005)

Carlo said:
			
		

> Not many people buy a mac because it has a PPC cpu in it
> IN steve we trust



Exactly, you bought a mac because you wanted the security, stabilty, and OS X not because of the chip


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Nov 28, 2005)

I think the arguement of not considering the CPU when buying a Mac is only partly true.  Since the PPC CPU began shipping in Macs, it was always highly touted as one main reason to buy the Mac. Because it was supposed to be so much better than a Pentium.  The ads mentioned it, the commercials mentioned it, the keynotes mentioned it. It was in your face advertising, pre and post OS X. Users that need the speed aren't as consumed with the look and feel of the OS, the genie effect, the fancy dock or other trivial details as the casual user. Many of these same users may very well have looked at all of these benchmarks and decided to base their continued use of the platform on the promise of simply being able to do what they do only faster knowing and in many cases not even caring what new features the OS may offer.


----------



## powermac (Nov 28, 2005)

I welcome the change, and trust Apple with what ever they thinks is best. The one question that bothers me is the PPC chip. Is it just a victim of no one really developing the chip? Motorola pushed it forward, although could they have done more to truly invest in the chip? When they announced that IBM took over the main development again, I was excited. Even they seemed to lose the necessary steam to truly bring the chip forward. 
I don't know about anything about micro-processor chip development. But is the PPC chip just limited in its growth potential, or no company is willing to invest in its future development with full intentions?


----------



## Veljo (Nov 28, 2005)

Well I for one support the switch, I think it will be good for Apple and Intel. Apple move forward with their technology all the time, unlike Microsoft. This move will be one of the greatest steps Apple has even taken, despite the criticism.

I for one bought my iMac because I knew the operating system was excellent...and not a day goes by that I don't regret it.

However, there's one thing that interests me. I compressed the exact same DV file with H.264, using QuickTime 7.0.3 at the exact same bitrate and everything on my iMac G4 800MHz and Pentium 4 3.4GHz PC to test the difference in speed. Here's what I came up with:

iMac G4 800MHz, 100MHz bus, 768MB RAM (133MHz)  18 minutes
Pentium 4 3.4GHz, 800MHz bus, 512MB RAM (400MHz)  8 minutes

I'm baffled as to why my Mac, with such poor spec sin comparison, was only about twice as slow as my PC. I would've thought the PC would have blasted it away but that wasn't the case at all.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 29, 2005)

Remember that that PC is running it on Windows (and to be honest, iTunes and QuickTime on Windows is not that great compared to iTunes and QuickTime on the Mac).  When the Intel Macs come out, perform the same test and see what happens.  Both should be running the same OS version when you do it, as well as the same version of QuickTime.  That scenario will give you a better idea of what difference there is between the two CPU platforms.


----------



## Johndoemanny34362 (Nov 29, 2005)

Carlo said:
			
		

> Not many people buy a mac because it has a PPC cpu in it. Intel make fantastic CPU's these days, they are the market leader for a good reason (unlike microsoft).
> 
> They will offer cheaper and faster mac portables.
> 
> IN steve we trust




HAHA LMFAO
If you think Intel makes fantastic CPUs, you haven't used or heard of A64. You must be joking if you have. Intel sucks compared to AMD. They are supposedly 2 years behind AMD in technology. They are way overpriced compared to AMD's. They just suck with 3d performance and most other things the A64 is better than. Still, Intel is better than IBM's PPC, so macs will get a benefit. 

Intel only has the large share of the market not because it's chips are faster, but only because of it's sheer size and pressure towards manufacturers and whole salers. IT also has numerous relationships with large companies and gives deals that AMD can't afford. Still AMD > Intel.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 29, 2005)

SuperTyphoon said:
			
		

> HAHA LMFAO
> If you think Intel makes fantastic CPUs, you haven't used or heard of A64. You must be joking if you have. Intel sucks compared to AMD. They are supposedly 2 years behind AMD in technology. They are way overpriced compared to AMD's. They just suck with 3d performance and most other things the A64 is better than. Still, Intel is better than IBM's PPC, so macs will get a benefit.
> 
> Intel only has the large share of the market not because it's chips are faster, but only because of it's sheer size and pressure towards manufacturers and whole salers. IT also has numerous relationships with large companies and gives deals that AMD can't afford. Still AMD > Intel.



While I do agree with you about the Athlon 64, consider that they are still WAY overpriced compared to some Intel P4 and P-D CPUs I have seen listed on Anandtech.  Also consider that Intel is making a shift to more performance with less power.  Intel's Pentium-M, while not as fast as an Athlon 64, is great when you consider the amount of power it requires.  And it's only about to get better with Yonah and subsequent releases.  AMD has to confront this head on, otherwise they will find themselves playing catch up again.  They should not underestimate Intel.

That being said, AMD's Opteron trumps anything Intel has to offer at the moment, and the AMD64 chips are smacking Intel when it comes to sheer performance in games (this is also assisted by the plethora of video cards, so I'm being very conservative in this statement).  Note that I'm only talking about single core chips, as a lot of the games still don't support multithreading necessary for the apps to run on a dual core AMD64.

As for the PPC, you know well enough my stance on the PPC platform.  I personally think that the PPC has received the short-end of the stick when it comes to support even from it's own creators.  However, this far from makes the PPC platform subpar to the x86 CPUs out there.  I'm sure others will back me up on this.  PPC has it's place, and we see it in the embedded and gaming arena.  As for desktop, it can do great things as we've witnessed with Apple, but if the creators of said technology aren't going to put their money where their mouth is in terms of support and marketing, there's not much you can do other than tip your hat in remorse.


----------



## nixgeek (Nov 29, 2005)

SuperTyphoon said:
			
		

> HAHA LMFAO
> If you think Intel makes fantastic CPUs, you haven't used or heard of A64. You must be joking if you have. Intel sucks compared to AMD. They are supposedly 2 years behind AMD in technology. They are way overpriced compared to AMD's. They just suck with 3d performance and most other things the A64 is better than. Still, Intel is better than IBM's PPC, so macs will get a benefit.
> 
> Intel only has the large share of the market not because it's chips are faster, but only because of it's sheer size and pressure towards manufacturers and whole salers. IT also has numerous relationships with large companies and gives deals that AMD can't afford. Still AMD > Intel.



While I do agree with you about the Athlon 64, consider that they are still WAY overpriced compared to some Intel P4 and P-D CPUs I have seen listed on Anandtech.  Also consider that Intel is making a shift to more performance with less power.  Intel's Pentium-M, while not as fast as an Athlon 64, is great when you consider the amount of power it requires.  And it's only about to get better with Yonah and subsequent releases.  AMD has to confront this head on, otherwise they will find themselves playing catch up again.  They should not underestimate Intel.

That being said, AMD's Opteron trumps anything Intel has to offer at the moment, and the AMD64 chips are smacking Intel when it comes to sheer performance in games (this is also assisted by the plethora of video cards, so I'm being very conservative in this statement).  Note that I'm only talking about single core chips, as a lot of the games still don't support multithreading necessary for the apps to run on a dual core AMD64.

As for the PPC, you know well enough my stance on the PPC platform.  I personally think that the PPC has received the short-end of the stick when it comes to support even from it's own creators.  However, this far from makes the PPC platform subpar to the x86 CPUs out there.  I'm sure others will back me up on this.  PPC has it's place, and we see it in the embedded and gaming arena.  As for desktop, it can do great things as we've witnessed with Apple, but if the creators of said technology aren't going to put their money where their mouth is in terms of support and marketing, there's not much you can do other than tip your hat in remorse.


----------



## fryke (Nov 29, 2005)

idhk said:
			
		

> Hey guys,
> Sorry to bother with this question, but why Apple wants to go Intel when the OSX would still be locked to the Apple hardware. What would be the benefit? I know that the current PPC is very very good CPU.
> Thanks



The reasons about this have been talked to death back when the step was announced in June 2005.

1) intel has a good roadmap for performance/watt ratio (according to Steve Jobs, that's the number one reason).
2) intel makes a _lot_ of processors. scale matters.
3) ibm and freescale (ex Motorola) had to be whipped all the time to make some progress with the PowerPC processors. seems like ibm couldn't keep up with Steve Jobs' pace, hence the change.

Also, it's not about _current_ PPC chips. Such a step has to be well planned and is about the roadmaps of IBM, FreeScale, intel, AMD and possibly others. Apple is probably doing good in choosing a manufacturer that has a proven record of being successful (even if intel's products haven't been 'best' at all times...). And since AMD's processors are compatible with what intel has to offer, nothing stands in the way of Apple later on also using AMD processors, so that discussion is really not necessary at this point.

Also, Apple makes the whole package. To me, it's important that the different parts in my notebooks play well together. Does it really matter if my current PB's processor runs at 1.33 GHz or 1.42? I think not. Does it matter that the whole machine performs well? Oh, yes, it does. intel offers more than just processors (chipsets, other stuff) and that might have played a role, too.


----------



## fryke (Nov 30, 2005)

Anandtech has tested a 2.0 GHz Yonah (dual core mobile processor!) against some AMD and intel stuff. To quote from TheRegister's interpretation:

--- "At 2.0GHz, Yonah is basically equal to, if not slightly slower than an Athlon 64 X2 running at the same clock speed in virtually all of the tests we ran," the site reports. "The important distinction here is that Intel is able to achieve that level of performance, without an on-die memory controller." ---

As I've said. It's not about what intel, AMD or any PowerPC offers today (=yesterday), it's about the future. Keep in mind that Yonah's a mobile processor while the Athlon 64 X2 is nowhere near that kind of performance/watt...

TheRegister: http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2005/11/30/intel_yonah_benchmarked/

Anandtech: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2627&p=1


----------



## mdnky (Nov 30, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Anandtech has tested a 2.0 GHz Yonah (dual core mobile processor!) against some AMD and intel stuff. To quote from TheRegister's interpretation:
> 
> --- "At 2.0GHz, Yonah is basically equal to, if not slightly slower than an Athlon 64 X2 running at the same clock speed in virtually all of the tests we ran," the site reports. "The important distinction here is that Intel is able to achieve that level of performance, without an on-die memory controller." ---



Yup


----------



## fryke (Dec 1, 2005)

Good answer.


----------



## dduck (Dec 1, 2005)

I gotta say that compared to the current offerings from AMD (current, mind you - the near-future stuff from AMD will probably outperform it handily) Yonah does not look like a slam-dunk based on the AT review. It is clearly yet another transitionary design, intended to go slightly beyond the Pentium M, but not the arch of the future. Still, it will be a nice change from the current Centrino lappies, and a more-than-nice change from a G4, so no worries... unless you REALLY think that you will REALLY need to run Windows 64 bit on it before you have to junk it for a new, faster model.

Personally I sure don't worry about the Win64 bit. All I want is to get a nice laptop, which will run OS X and allow me to develop and test for Windows occationally with reasonable performance (VMware). I expect to be able to buy that in half a year or so.


----------



## fryke (Dec 1, 2005)

To prevent such comments, they should've also tested AMDs notebook processors. Because I truly think Yonah rocks if it can compare so well against AMDs desktop processors (which cost a fortune, too...).


----------



## dduck (Dec 1, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> To prevent such comments, they should've also tested AMDs notebook processors. Because I truly think Yonah rocks if it can compare so well against AMDs desktop processors (which cost a fortune, too...).



Well, I agree that it seems a mite strange that they only compare with desktop chips butI don't see how they can declare it a fabulously fast chip even tho it does not really do all that well in comparison to the chips they pit it against. Seems rather biased to me... or like they are realy comparing it against something the chose not to include.

Also, i'd add that I don't get why people get all worked up about portable performance? Clearly, if you pick a laptop, you have chosen to value portability over performance... Nothing wrong with that, BTW. As long as performance is "OK", it's plenty good for everybody. People who want to play games that require high performance on a laptop are few and far between anyway (note: WANT, not "would like to have the capability in theory, but really don't do it even if they can").


----------



## fryke (Dec 1, 2005)

I guess the choice is different. I consider myself a "mobile computer person", i.e. I wouldn't really consider buying a PowerMac or iMac anytime soon, so all I care about are things like battery life and, yes, performance of the chips that _are_ a choice for notebooks. So when the desktops got the G5 processor (finally! that took a _very_ long time!), I too believed that a mobile version would follow - even if it'd take a year or something. The fact that intel creates processors for notebooks that can compete well with desktop processors thus means quite a lot to me. To say that people like me gave up performance in the first place is, I'd say, wrong. It's just that performance takes second place to portability. Doesn't mean it's not important.


----------



## Quicksilver (Dec 1, 2005)

Check this article out. There is more reason to join the team.

_"Some analysts believe Apple Computer might also be preparing to come on board with some recent moves into the home entertainment market and a separate undertaking to begin using Intel microprocessors in its Macintosh computers next year."_

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking/intel-inside-the-living-room/2005/12/01/1133311156408.html


.


----------



## dduck (Dec 2, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> It's just that performance takes second place to portability. Doesn't mean it's not important.



That's exactly what I said...

Obviously one will never get the same price/performance ratio in a portable, as one has to pay for more things (design, smaller components) and accept different desgn trade-offs. The question is how much lower performance one will accept.

As for me, as long as I get the productivity boost and lower annoyance factor of OS X, I will apparently acccept about 50% of the performance of a state-of-the-art (Wintel) desktop computer. No shame in that - performance is not the only thing to judge a computer by.


----------



## fryke (Dec 2, 2005)

Oh, I overinterpreted your phrase there, it seems. Sorry. 

From how _I_'ve read the article, they intend to have a more silent, small desktop computer, for which Yonah is great. Almost the performance of highend desktop processors with the option of having them in very small form factor cases, whereas the highend processors need a lot of fans, cooling and space.


----------



## Roto31 (Dec 4, 2005)

My take on the whole Intel switch is Apple was looking for more power and IBM basically said "screw you" when they started getting heavier into the game machine processors. So Apple went shopping. They decided upon Intel because of their ability to make good processors and they also have a good distrobution and manufacturing capabilty. AMD may have faster processors with a higher performance but ever notice that HP and other companies only have AMD machines at retailers at certain times of the year and not year around??? AMD has the same problem IBM had when it made the first G5's they can not build chips fast enough and distribute them quick enough. Apple didn't want another fiasco like when the G5's first came out. For Apple it's a win on their part. Also if there are those of you who know your Apple history or watched the Keynote. We should be thanking Intel a lot. Without capital from Intel Apple would not exist. That's right, I said it Apple would not exist without help from Intel almost 30 years ago. That's all I'm gonna say. I'll let the rest of you fight about it. 
      P.S. I hate PC nitwits who come in here to bash just to do it. Learn some respect please.It really pisses me off


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Dec 4, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> So when the desktops got the G5 processor (finally! that took a _very_ long time!), I too believed that a mobile version would follow - even if it'd take a year or something.


Isn't the current G5 chip that Apple uses a derivative of IBM's Power5 chip that is mainly used in servers?  If so, I can see why a mobile version was never released -- it was probably never intended to be a low-power, low-heat, small chip meant to be used in a small space like a portable.

This is pretty much what I've been thinking from the start, and never really had high hopes for a mobile version of the G5 -- I just don't think it was ever designed to be stuck into a portable computer.


----------



## goodbyegates (Dec 6, 2005)

I think that Apple switch to Intel is going to be a good thing. It will unify the desktop computing platform to Intel (TPM is the only difference between a mactel, and everything else) That will help open source software, which has already benefited of Apple's software developers. And allow for the evolution of the general computer user to a *nix environment. It will also make it easier for Linux/open source developers (no more seperate ppc code) Until eventually, the whole world is using open source software (maybe by 2015?) and we'll be able to say "I remember a time when people would steal software, because it wasn't free"


----------



## aquamacus (Dec 6, 2005)

If you look at the recent rumors surrounding apple releasing a home media device the move to intel makes more sense.  Intel does a lot of things that never make the light of day because they can't get the industry behind it.  This how USB was initially; intel couldn't get anyone behind it.  The PC industry was still stuck on ancient protocols and interfaces.  Intel gave apple a call to include this on newer machines.  Now USB has become rather ubiquitous in the industry.  With Apple in bed with intel it makes even more things possible...


----------



## fryke (Dec 7, 2005)

The PowerPC 970 (original G5) was a derivate of the Power4 chip. However: The PPC 970 was clearly aimed at desktop use, i.e. they removed a core and added AltiVec etc. They also did something about the heat. Since they sold Apple a "future" - not only one processor line, I'd say the expectation was to bring the 64bit chip down to mobile devices eventually. Steve Jobs himself said that he had two expectations that weren't met: 3 GHz and a notebook processor. Yesterday, the Freescale CEO (who was _there_ at IBM before his job at Freescale) said IBM _decided_ not to do a notebook version later on in the game. (- http://haligon.blogspot.com/2005/12/ibm-decided-not-to-do-notebook-g5.html -)
I clearly think that it _was_ the plan to have a notebook-ready processor sometime in 2005, but that was canned. Apple quite certainly didn't _want_ to stick with the G4 processor all this time (just look at how close the iBook came to the PowerBook for some periods after it changed from the G3 to the G4).



			
				ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Isn't the current G5 chip that Apple uses a derivative of IBM's Power5 chip that is mainly used in servers?  If so, I can see why a mobile version was never released -- it was probably never intended to be a low-power, low-heat, small chip meant to be used in a small space like a portable.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Dec 7, 2005)

has the gap in power between the powermacs and the powerbooks ever been so big? (1.67ghz g4 133mhz fsb to dual-core 2.5ghz G5 with 1.25ghz fsb)


----------



## kainjow (Dec 7, 2005)

Check out this interview of the CEO of Freescale Semiconductor. According to him, Apple was interested in switching to Intel before the G5, but didn't want to hassle with porting software. I guess back then the technology behind Rosetta wasn't complete, and now it is, which allows for this kind of switch to happen more easily.


----------

