Apple to switch to Intel Processors!

[Joshua]

Today, "The Wall Street Journal" is reporting that Apple and Intel
are in talks to move the Mac to an Intel-based platform. Although
neither company corroborated the report, "The Wall Street Journal"
noted that it has multiple sources for the story (as, incidentally, I
did for mine). "Two industry executives with knowledge of recent
discussions between the companies said Apple will agree to use Intel
chips," the story reads. "One of the two industry executives said Apple
isn't likely to market OS X for other PCs. Besides hurting its own
hardware business, such a path would put Apple in more direct
competition with Microsoft, whose application programs are important to
the success of the Macintosh. Instead, the company is likely to package
its modified software with its own Intel-based hardware."
Apple almost moved to Intel's chips in the past. The first attempt,
in 1992, was dubbed Project Star Trek because it would have taken
computing "where no man has gone before." Apple backed away from the
project, however, because it would have drastically reduced the
company's hardware sales, a primary source of Apple's income.
"The Wall Street Journal" reports that Apple could make the Intel
announcement as soon as June 6, when Apple CEO Steve Jobs will present
a keynote address at the company's developer confab, the Worldwide
Developer Conference (WWDC) 2005. Officially, however, Apple refers to
the possibility of moving to Intel as "rumor and speculation."

[Showtime]

Great little article just because of the following quote:
Apple almost moved to Intel's chips in the past. The first attempt,
in 1992, was dubbed Project Star Trek because it would have taken
computing "where no man has gone before."

That may have been the geekiest thing I've heard all month.

Thanks,

-j

[hapoo]

interesting how MS is using PPC chips and Apple is looking at Intel. Apparently they've been keeping an Intel-compatable version of their OS active for years.

[Jeffbx]

That's very cool - this is the one thing Apple has been missing in their lineup - a machine that can compete costwise/specwise with a PC.

Yahoo linky:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/apple_intel

[InfiniteNothing]

G6?

[ribitch]

Apple is looking to intel for chips, not necessarily processors for their desktop systems.

Their RAID uses Intel Chipsets, same with their airport express. Intel is more than an x86 processor supplier. I am pretty sure if they are in talks, that it would be for something other a computer running mac osx.

This rumor seems to be kicked around every few months, and each and every time these rumors are way off.

[DarkFury]

Heh... "there goes the neighborhood"....


Time to switch to AMD now I guess... :heh: (just kidding... :D )

[Thesifer]

They stated in the Article.. that they could just be talking with intel.. to get leverage with IBM.. on Pricing and such.. which could very well be the case!.. Although Im hoping not.. I also Own stock in Intel :-P

[moosehead]

I'm sure even if they were referring to processors that it doesn't mean they're going to run off something based on the x86 core. They've switched manufacturers before and stuck with their RISC architecture.

[kimchicowboy]

Time to switch to AMD now I guess... :heh:
aw, you're such a tease, DF. hehehe :P

[hapoo]

Apple is looking to intel for chips, not necessarily processors for their desktop systems.

Their RAID uses Intel Chipsets, same with their airport express. Intel is more than an x86 processor supplier. I am pretty sure if they are in talks, that it would be for something other a computer running mac osx.

This rumor seems to be kicked around every few months, and each and every time these rumors are way off.


http://news.com.com/Apple+to+ditch+IBM%2C+switch+to+Intel+chips/2100-1006_3-5731398.html?tag=nefd.lede

interesting :P

[Thesifer]

Maybe Apple Computers can start actually competing in the Computer market Again .. that wouldnt be so bad..

[gear02]

We'll find out today at WWDC...

[bachviet]

From MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8109913/):

Sources: Apple to switch to Intel chips
Snub to IBM ends stormy Silicon Valley relationshipThe Associated Press
Updated: 5:55 p.m. ET June 5, 2005SAN FRANCISCO - A stormy, decade-long relationship between Apple Computer Inc. and IBM is over, according to published reports.

advertisement

Apple CEO Steve Jobs is expected to announce Monday morning at the company’s software developers conference in San Francisco that Apple will discontinue using microprocessor chips made by IBM in favor of Intel chips, according to CNET Networks Inc.’s News.com and The Wall Street Journal.

Officials from Apple, Intel Corp. and International Business Machines Corp. could not be reached Sunday to confirm the report.

For years, rumors of Apple’s wish to jump to Intel have been circulating. But two weeks ago, analysts were skeptical when The Wall Street Journal reported that Intel and Apple were in negotiations.

One reason for the skepticism is that the move represents a significant risk for Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple.

Switching to Intel’s x86 chips would force Apple’s programmers to rewrite its software in order to adapt to the new processor.

Doubts about Apple's move
“I don’t know that Apple’s market share can survive another architecture shift,” Insight 64 analyst Nathan Brookwood told News.com. “Every time they do this, they lose more customers.”

News.com reported that Apple would begin the transition to Intel with its lower-end computers, such as the Mac Mini, in mid-2006 and higher-end models a year later.

Apple’s break with IBM stemmed from Jobs’ wish that IBM make a larger variety of the PowerPC processors used in Macintosh systems. IBM balked because of concerns over the profitability of a low-volume business, News.com reported.

By wrestling away Apple’s business from IBM, Intel tightens its stranglehold on the PC processor business. The company holds more than an 80 percent share of the market.

Although IBM suffers a setback with the loss of Apple, the company is expected to reap a financial windfall after signing up Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony Corp. to use PowerPC technology in future video-game machines.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[ribitch]

its true. jobs announed it.


http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/index.html

[Cubsfan]

its true. jobs announed it.


http://www4.macnn.com/macnn/wwdc/05/index.html
Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts about it?

[ski]

I personally think it's good in the aspect of Macs and PC's being able to be compared by the average consumer, but bad for a few reasons like AMD being left out even further.

I remember once someone said that a Mac's hardware cycle was much longer than a PC's. I didn't quite agree with that, but now it's pretty much moot since they'll be using essentially identical hardware.

[ribitch]

mixed.

good:
possibly lower cost mac
possiblity for home built macs
benchmarks can possibly be compared
potentially can drastically expand apples 16% installbase

bad:
possibility for windows to run natively on a mac
can be a dangerous transition

I wish i had a ton of apple stock today...

[Cubsfan]

So, if my girlfriend was looking at getting an iBook, is it worth it to wait? I'd guess not, but just curious about what you "Mac-guys" think.

[gear02]

It's not worth waiting. The first intel based macs will be released next year with imacs, then powermacs in 2007. I'm not sure when their notebooks will get the intel treatment.

It's a huge risk, but Steve Jobs got big balls. He decided IBM's PPC roadmap was too limited and switched to Intel chips to get better performance. I'm very impressed by his willingness to risk, but more impressed at how future-proofed they were. They're essentially done with the port of OSX to intel. They've been compiling OSX on Intel for the last 5 years "just in case."

At the keynote, they ran the keynote on Apple's Keynote software on a P4 3.2ghz. They showed a demo of it running flawlessly on Intel. Amazing.

[Jeffbx]

mixed.

bad:
possibility for windows to run natively on a mac
can be a dangerous transition


I don't understand your bad's -

First, I bet they will put some sort of lock in place (maybe in bios) that will make it difficult if not impossible to load Windows - however, there will almost certainly be someone who will figure it out anyway.

Second, I think this is FAR from a bad thing - his may be the one thing that pushes Apple hardware into the mainstream. Today, there's no way I would buy a Mac - too expensive for the performance. However, if I could get my hands on a machine that NATIVELY runs both OSs at full speed? Come on - who wouldn't want that? That could be worth a premium in cost.

And what's dangerous about the transition?

[gear02]

They're not going to let OSX run on your typical PC. Even though they're using P4 chips, they will still use a lot of unique hardware. For one, they'll have their own mobo and bios. So there's no way you can slap OSX onto your machine to get it to run.

Why not?

Because Apple makes a lot of its money on hardware. Opening OSX to PCs will break their hold on their hardware. Who's going to buy a powermac when they can built a similar PC for like $1000 less?

However, I think they can use it as leverage against Microsoft. Piss us off? Well here's OSX for all PCs. Though I don't think it'll overthrow MS, it'll significantly drop their marketshare (sigificant = 10-15% which is a lot).

As far as the transition, it's gonna be rocky. It's a similar transition from OS9 to OSX where there were compatibility issues and so forth.

[LegendKiller]

I think this has been a foregone conclusion for years. Developing proprietary buses, interfaces and using high-end HDD interfaces did nothing but hurt Apple. They streamlined and became more "mainstream" with AGP, PCI-X, PATA/SATA..etc. They became more mainstream with a *nix based OS and then transitioned from a pure hardware company with a cool software interface to a hybrid hardware company with pure software.

The only dangerous part is the alienation of the Yellow Beattle people. The ubah-freakishly psycho "I am different" type of people who will feel betrayed. Everybody else will embrace MacTel systems and when it comes down to it the freaks have no options anyway.

I guess the 2nd dangerous part is Apple becoming a falcon northwest or Alienware. Production of a commodity item that isn't much better than anything else that has no perks and appeals to a very small crowd.

This can be mitigated by keeping Apple locks on development of Apple HW, mobo's, cases, etc... All they'd really need to do is build in core logic to the chipsets and patent it. They still have their OS going for them.

I think the security through obscurity argument is going to show itself once the transition happens. Will they become a bigger target?

[Showtime]

Cant wait to run my AMD 64 powered mac!

-j

[hapoo]

wow, and it only took them 20 years to make the switch. I for one am pretty excited. Chances are pretty damn good that they'll make it run only on their own hardware, but if i could run it on a normal comp, wouldn't that just kick ass. Now we can finally upgrade a mac cpu when it gets too slow for us. I imagine porting software might be somewhat easier as well. BRING ON THE PHOTOSHOP BENCHMARKS BIAAAAATCH!


btw just cause they're using intel does in no way mean that it'll be compatable with our computers. our cpu is just one small componant that works in conjunction of a lot of parts to make the computer.

[zero2dash]

Because Apple makes a lot of its money on hardware. Opening OSX to PCs will break their hold on their hardware. Who's going to buy a powermac when they can built a similar PC for like $1000 less?

Ok, well let's get this out of the way...(IMO) Apple makes ALL its money on hardware - not 'some'. :thumb: Their PCs are way overpriced and they make a killing on that alone, not to mention the fact that iPods have long since taken over the portable music player market...if not for hardware, Apple wouldn't make nearly anything at all (as a whole...I'm not sneezing at millions a year in OS/Software sales for previous/current Mac owners).

As for running OSX on a custom built (or other branded) PC - I'd be interested in it, but as for your reason as to why it'll never happen; umm I think you're off. Apple started producing Mac Mini to compete with PCs in terms of upfront cost and, while it's a start - they're still a few hundred miles off target. Mac Mini is cute and cheap (when compared to other Mac systems) but it's still double the price of a nicely configured (and higher spec'd) Windows PC box. If Apple says "all you gearheads that built your own PCs, here's OSX for you" and box it and ship it out - they'd sell a lot of copies of the software. (And essentially pull a switcheroo on what I said above - they'd probably make more money off software than they do hardware.)

Most people can agree - hardware/software companies make more money off software than they do hardware. Console gaming is a prime example of this, but PCs are as well. I'm sure Microsoft sells millions more in Windows software than they do keyboards and mice.

I use a G5 at work and own a P4 at home (I'm a graphic designer and I use Adobe Creative Suite 2 on both). I love when I get home and can use XP Pro again. Macs are good computers; aside from a few differences that take a whole 30 minutes to get used to, I have no problem with Macs. I'd be interested in having an OS as well built as OSX at home, but there's no way that I'm paying $3000 to get a G5 comparable to my P4...if I could pay $100 to run OSX on my P4 then I'd do it in a heartbeat. All the applications I use (CS2, Office, Firefox) are available on both platforms and work equally as good...what have I got to lose?

I still do prefer XP Pro and my PC and I still hate the damn 1 button "push me down to click" Apple mouse. :hihi:

[LPMiller]

possibility for windows to run natively on a mac
can be a dangerous transition

maybe, but I'm assuming the lack of BIOS will make that difficult. Not impossible, but hell, you can run it now emulated. For me, it would be a reason to get a mac and dual boot.

now, I realize they have said they will not allow os X to run on a straight Intel plateform, but I don't see how they can make it truly impossible. And frankly, OS x could do what Linux just can't, which is go truly mainstream.

As for dangerous transition, I don't expect any deaths, but frankly this should be a ton easier then the transition to the PPC was.

[ribitch]

why is windows on a mac bad? it is good for compatibility, but i see mac users trying to dual boot like they did with OS X and OS 9. its not going to work the same way. The mac/windows dual boot will be harder to do, and there can potentially be a lot of data lose. At the same time, a mac user will get pissed that they cannot see the mac data from within windows on the same machine. Or while in windows, teh delete the hidden system files on the mac side.

The transition can be dangerous if not done properly. What they have shown is great, and I am going to try to get my office to purchase one of those 999 systems for me. The price is pretty good, and I am already an ADC select member, so the money is the only thing in my way.

if the transition fails, apple is done. if it goes good, that installbase of 16% (thats right, market share is under 5%, but user base is at 16%) can easily pass 20% or more.

Apple has been working their asses off to make the mac a more viable option than tiger. I have even heard it directly from apple management. they want to be there next to longhorn to say "hey, if they couldnt do it right the first time, what makes you think longhorn is any better?" The industry has been buzzing about Tiger. Just wait until Leopard, and the Intel mac hit the streets.

[LPMiller]

You're post is full of assumptions that have no basis. There will be no dual booting macs. (which isn't that bad, I had a Quadra 610 with a 486 PC card, it works just fine.). Even if they were intending that, it's not like grandma would rush out to do it, dual booting would be done by people who have at least a small clue. Likely windows users.

The transition should frankly be cake, assuming their emulator works half as good as they say it does. they've been running X for a long damn time on intel platforms. The only reason it's taken this long to jump to intel had more to do with IBM commitments Scully and the other guy made before Jobs came back to the company. Jobs NEVER wanted the PPC. He was stuck with it.

Apple could lose their entire computer business and still be just fine. As a software company, they rock, and the ipods are not going to be trumped any time soon. This intel change is just the next step in Jobs master plan.

[zero2dash]

You're post is full of assumptions that have no basis. There will be no dual booting macs. (which isn't that bad, I had a Quadra 610 with a 486 PC card, it works just fine.). Even if they were intending that, it's not like grandma would rush out to do it, dual booting would be done by people who have at least a small clue. Likely windows users.

The transition should frankly be cake, assuming their emulator works half as good as they say it does. they've been running X for a long damn time on intel platforms. The only reason it's taken this long to jump to intel had more to do with IBM commitments Scully and the other guy made before Jobs came back to the company. Jobs NEVER wanted the PPC. He was stuck with it.

Apple could lose their entire computer business and still be just fine. As a software company, they rock, and the ipods are not going to be trumped any time soon. This intel change is just the next step in Jobs master plan.

Excellent post, good sir. :thumb:

I wholeheartedly agree. Mac PC hardware could go the way of the dinosaur and they'd make a killing off iPods and their software for current Mac owners. If they ported OSX to standard regulation-issue PCs (custom builts, Dells, HPs, Vaios etc), they'd make millions upon millions because for every millions upon millions of PC owners I bet you at least 1 in 8 would buy OSX for PC if they're told enough about it (about how much more secure it is versus Windows, about how "Critical Updates" don't exist for OSX - which is partly true - etc) and Apple would make more money off software than they do now with hardware and software. It's like this...Apple alienates 99% of PC owners because they're not Apple/Mac PC owners. If they (open handedly) give alternative OS PC users an Apple OS option, they're gonna make their money in spades.

[ribitch]

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel+-+page+2/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html?tag=st.num


After Jobs' presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. "That doesn't preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will," he said. "We won't do anything to preclude that."

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.

if they are saying they wont cripple that capability, you know others will do it. once its on the net, more and more people will do it, including those whould shouldnt do it. Based on Schillers quote, its safe to assume it will be done. Therefore my assumptions are correct. An HFS+ plugin will have to exist for windows to see the mac volume. there may already be one available.

[zero2dash]

Apple's ok with Windows running on Macs but not ok with Windows PCs running OSX...wow I already disliked Apple for their prices and unwillingness to stop pushing their own ideas (FireWire over USB etc), but now I think I hate them even more because they're nothing more than hypocrites. :stupid:

[ribitch]

Apple's ok with Windows running on Macs but not ok with Windows PCs running OSX...wow I already disliked Apple for their prices and unwillingness to stop pushing their own ideas (FireWire over USB etc), but now I think I hate them even more because they're nothing more than hypocrites. :stupid:

apple pushed usb in 98 and 99. usb is old and dated. firewire is faster than usb over sustained data transfers. When doing video editting and other large transfers, firewire is best. Firewire 800 is much faster than USB anyways.

Apple does push USB 2 now. All new ipods use USB. Firewire is optional.(you need to buy the data cord)

[LPMiller]

http://news.com.com/Apple+throws+the+switch%2C+aligns+with+Intel+-+page+2/2100-7341_3-5733756-2.html?tag=st.num



if they are saying they wont cripple that capability, you know others will do it. once its on the net, more and more people will do it, including those whould shouldnt do it. Based on Schillers quote, its safe to assume it will be done. Therefore my assumptions are correct. An HFS+ plugin will have to exist for windows to see the mac volume. there may already be one available.

Yeah, hackers and nerds will do it. Average mac users aren't going to rush out to dual boot windows. It just ain't going to happen. Average users don't even take the time to update their virus defs or uninstal desktop icons from when their computer was new 3 years ago. They aren't going to be crazy to dual boot.

[gear02]

I have a feeling we're all thinking too much about this. I bet it's just going to be business as usual, with any changes almost transparent to the end user.

[ski]

Another vote for laying down $100 to buy OSX to run on my machine, if they will ever move into strictly software.

[zero2dash]

apple pushed usb in 98 and 99. usb is old and dated. firewire is faster than usb over sustained data transfers. When doing video editting and other large transfers, firewire is best. Firewire 800 is much faster than USB anyways.

Apple does push USB 2 now. All new ipods use USB. Firewire is optional.(you need to buy the data cord)

Hmm I didn't know that...I wish I had an iPod but I haven't shopped for one...umm...ever. :) Thanks for the info.

You know, I agree with gear02 (and LP on the News page) - I think we're all thinking about this too much. Then again I think half the internet is also thinking about this too much. :heh: I wonder if this is the biggest tech news in years...? Seems like the buzz would make it appear to be...

[gear02]

Hmm I didn't know that...I wish I had an iPod but I haven't shopped for one...umm...ever. :) Thanks for the info.

You know, I agree with gear02 (and LP on the News page) - I think we're all thinking about this too much. Then again I think half the internet is also thinking about this too much. :heh: I wonder if this is the biggest tech news in years...? Seems like the buzz would make it appear to be...

The biggest tech news in years is the PS3, X360, Nintendo Revolution launches. It's going to be huge x3 (one for each launch).

I think the buzz for this is big because everyone has dreams that they can now run OSX on their wintel machines. After all, Apple might suck, but everyone likes them more than Microsoft.

[ribitch]

Yeah, hackers and nerds will do it. Average mac users aren't going to rush out to dual boot windows. It just ain't going to happen. Average users don't even take the time to update their virus defs or uninstal desktop icons from when their computer was new 3 years ago. They aren't going to be crazy to dual boot.


If the average person is told that they can buy a pc that runs mac os x and they can install windows and run windows apps in a non emulated environment, and chances are they will want to do it. Sure, not everyone is going to do it, but i am guessing a good portion of people will. This will make the mac the most compatible hardware platform. It can run windows, mac os x and linux all at native, non emulated speeds.

[gear02]

If the average person is told that they can buy a pc that runs mac os x and they can install windows and run windows apps in a non emulated environment, and chances are they will want to do it. Sure, not everyone is going to do it, but i am guessing a good portion of people will. This will make the mac the most compatible hardware platform. It can run windows, mac os x and linux all at native, non emulated speeds.

I think you're overestimating what the average person wants to do.

The average person just wants their damn computer to work. The average person surfs the web, sends/receives emails, maybe some financial/bill transactions, and maybe does instant messenging. If a microwave could do all that, then they would sit in front of the microwave. They just want a box that runs all the time and is easy to use.

I don't think the average person would want to run OSX and windows even if they could do it. Instead, I think such capabilties would scare many average users away since it would be too complicated.

[mcs328]

I like to think I'm an average user and it doesn't matter what chip runs inside an Apple. If the interface is user friendly then they'll buy it if they can afford it. I'm sure the average doesn't even know what kind of chip powers Apple before. Intel makes it known they power Windows based machines but not many average users I'm guessing will know what AMD is.

I vote for transparent change to the average user and hopefully cheaper manufacturing costs.

[gear02]

I wonder if it really did cost much more to put a PPC rather than if they had used Intel chips. I suspect it's not that much. I bet a lot of the "markup" is due to apple's status and designs, much like the one Sony enjoyed for a bit.

[BrewMaster]

I think you're overestimating what the average person wants to do.

The average person just wants their damn computer to work. The average person surfs the web, sends/receives emails, maybe some financial/bill transactions, and maybe does instant messenging. If a microwave could do all that, then they would sit in front of the microwave. They just want a box that runs all the time and is easy to use.

I don't think the average person would want to run OSX and windows even if they could do it. Instead, I think such capabilties would scare many average users away since it would be too complicated.
:stupid:

no way is the average Joe going to run out and buy a mac so that they can run OSX, Windows, and Linux. People just don't care. I also don't think the folks at Apple are thinking dual booters will increase their market share. if so, that is a stupid strategy. I think you are sorely mistaken Ribitch.

Just think about how many people dual boot any 2 operating systems now. it's probably less than 1% of all users. (this is a WAG, so feel free to prove me wrong.) it would be a fraction of that on Apple hardware if it becomes possible.

[LPMiller]

If the average person is told that they can buy a pc that runs mac os x and they can install windows and run windows apps in a non emulated environment, and chances are they will want to do it. Sure, not everyone is going to do it, but i am guessing a good portion of people will. This will make the mac the most compatible hardware platform. It can run windows, mac os x and linux all at native, non emulated speeds.

Then you don't really know what an 'average' user is. An average user uses their machine to surf, compose letters, and store spyware. The average user shops around and still buys the emachine. An average user does not know how to turn off the personalized menus, does not go out of their way to try firefox, and hates tabbed browsing when someone else installs it on their machine.

They absolutely will not be on the dual boot bandwagon. The people who will dual boot will be the ones that always have to have the latest OS, and currently use XP Pro or Tiger. The dual booters will either have a business need to dual boot, or a desire to tinker with the otherside. My mother will not be dual booting. Most people won't. Most PC users are not tinkers. If they don't have a reason to do it, they are not going to run out and plunk down another 100 bucks on an OS they don't need. The first people who do it will be warezing one OS or the other, and the 2nd ones to do it will have their company pay for the other copy. The last group will be hardcore gamers, who tinker anyway.

People who shop for PC's at Best Buy will not dual boot. People who buy the one Dell with the built in Intel graphics engine and no AGP/PCI-E slot will not dual boot. These people have not heard of dual core procs, do not understand what AGP or PCI-E is, and most don't even know the difference between USB 1.1 and 2.0. These people make up the majority of users.

[gear02]

Then you don't really know what an 'average' user is. An average user uses their machine to surf, compose letters, and store spyware. The average user shops around and still buys the emachine. An average user does not know how to turn off the personalized menus, does not go out of their way to try firefox, and hates tabbed browsing when someone else installs it on their machine.

They absolutely will not be on the dual boot bandwagon. The people who will dual boot will be the ones that always have to have the latest OS, and currently use XP Pro or Tiger. The dual booters will either have a business need to dual boot, or a desire to tinker with the otherside. My mother will not be dual booting. Most people won't. Most PC users are not tinkers. If they don't have a reason to do it, they are not going to run out and plunk down another 100 bucks on an OS they don't need. The first people who do it will be warezing one OS or the other, and the 2nd ones to do it will have their company pay for the other copy. The last group will be hardcore gamers, who tinker anyway.

People who shop for PC's at Best Buy will not dual boot. People who buy the one Dell with the built in Intel graphics engine and no AGP/PCI-E slot will not dual boot. These people have not heard of dual core procs, do not understand what AGP or PCI-E is, and most don't even know the difference between USB 1.1 and 2.0. These people make up the majority of users.

:stupid:

You know what the saddest part is? A lot of these people also work in the computer/software development industry (though mostly as testers, not developers). I should know, I've worked with a bunch of these types for the last 3 years...

[_=DeltaForce=_]

so I guess you will be able to Load WinXP in a Apple PC??

[LPMiller]

only after A) the machine actually comes out and assuming that then, B) someone hacks a way to do. It won't happen right away. Apple just isn't going to prevent it. But there will be some hardware and driver issues to deal with before dual booting will work.