/Computors

[Gorath Sodom]

Is this specifically Mac VS Windows or is it Power PC VS x86?

I'll just make a brief touch on both issues:

Even though the G5 is seemingly more powerful than the x86 architecture, be it Intel or even AMD's processors, it is too expensive and not enough people are developing for it, and ultimately it seems Apple is trying to go for more of a PC approach with their jump from the G5 to Intel hardware.

As far as the OS is concerned, how can Windows compare, especially to OS X? It's built on a UNIX core for frack's sake.

[Secret Azn Man]

Even through I had a paragraph about the superiority of PPC architecture, my entire post is mainly Mac OS vs Windows. I didn't include Linux in it because I know next to nothing about it.

The G5 is not more expensive than the Pentiums. For Apple, it was cheaper to buy G4s and G5s than Core Duos. I've already explained a bit on why Apple switched to x86 architecture in another topic linked by postalblowfish. But I'll recap it here: Motorola/Freescale and IBM simply failed to deliver what Apple wanted. They failed to create a G5 that runs cool enough for laptops. They failed to break the 3 GHz barrier as promised. Freescale prefers to focus on the embedded technology making processors for cars, coffeemakers, and medical equipment. IBM failed to give Apple a 3 GHz Power970 variant but gave Microsoft a three core 3.1 GHz PPC processor for Xbox 360, is working with Toshiba and Sony on the CELL processor that's based on a custom PPC arcvhitecture running at 3+ GHz for PS 3, and is or will supply Nintendo a PPC processor for the Revolution. With IBM more focused on consoles and enterprise servers, it was clear Apple was no longer a priority.

Meanwhile, Intel has been courting Apple for years. They've always wanted Macs to run on Intel's processors. So, Apple did the only thing it could do.