Let's make sure we're all clear here about what "Apple moving to x86" means here. There are two scenerios that are distinctly different but fall under that same banner:
1) Apple "simply" replaces the PPC with an x86 (whichever flavour they choose). Meaning that Apple still produces "Apple proprietary" boxes, but with an x86 at it's core (double pun not intended).
2) Apple ports OSX to run on beige box systems (aka a pc). Apple may or may not continue to sell Apple branded computers, but they are effectively Apple PC's.
Scenerio two seems to be what people are usually referring to when they say "Apple moving to x86", and it is the option that is guaranteed to either A) kill Apple all together B) relegate it to an applications software company 1/100th the size of the current Apple. It's hard to believe that with any knowledge of the current market and pc market history that anyone would think that this is actually a good idea. Steve tried this before with NeXT, didn't work then, won't work now.
Scenerio one is the one that makes the most sense (assuming you think that there is any sense to this x86 talk at all). This gives Apple (and their customers) what they want in a machine with a very high clock rate (and good raw integer computing punch). But still allows Apple to produce "high quality" highly integrated boxes. Which most importantly means that they can continue to sell high margin boxes.
So, whenever anyone makes a comment about their thoughts on "moving to x86", lets make sure that that person is clear exactly what scenerio they're referring to so we can put their comments in the proper context.
