100 iPods a minute.

I'm of the understanding that, generally, Macs perform better than their PC equivalents already. Am I wrong about this?

Sure, Macs are fine if you never want to play a game other than World of Warcraft.

Wait, so why haven't I switched yet?

Apple has performed differently than PC's (better in some, slower in others) depending on the applications and criteria used in the testing (and whose doing the testing).

They has been hindered by their chips in the past, especially in the laptop area. With the faster Intel chips, the vastly superior security and ease of use of OSX compared with Windows, the rise in iPods and the decreasing of the price (or at least offering lower end Macs), Apple should grab more market share from Microsoft, which will be better for everyone (both Mac and PC users).

As one who uses both platforms, I have to agree with Aaron in that it depends on the application. Video editing, Apples rule.
I prefer Windows because its easier to tweak and customize, and a hell of a lot easier and cheaper to get parts, to say nothing of ass-kick games. Plus with AD, Windows network management is much more sophisticated.
For the average user, the end experience is getting very close. Browsers are Browsers and Word Processors are Word Processors.

Well, let's say that I hit the Open Source route and load up a computer with Open Office, Firefox, the GIMP, and stuff like that.

Which computer would give me more bang for the buck right now? I think the Macs would do that. But PCs are generally more affordable. Would this Intel deal help bring prices down somwhat?

The switch to intel is unlikely to change Apple prices. What it will change is price/performance.

God I wish I'd bought AAPL two years ago.

if you price up a windows box with comparable software to the included iLife and a full os (not tenp home edition) you get a better built machine for same money, I had to buy a Toshiba laptop for my daughter (1000 haol marys) it turns out to have max bat life of 2 hours, crap our 17inch powerbook, 2 years old runs for over 3 hours in wireless use, is 1/3 the thickness and has great free software, the toshiba, came with nothing except a kneecapped os, sure the Tosh was a little less than a slightly faster iBook but if I had paid for the upgrade to a full OS and a spare battery we would have been in powerbook money,.

Jimmie,

Presumably, Intel chips will help reduce the cost of Apples on a straight GHz/$ ratio. There are massive economies of scale for computer chips, and Intel is (I believe) the biggest manufacturer by far.

"Bang for the buck" is heavily dependent on the applications to which you put your computer, though. The architecture of computer chips can be optimized for certain functions, but with penalties for other functions. You can do pretty much everything on any machine, except possibly play certain games on an Apple machine. But if you plan to use your computer for graphic design, for example, almost any expert will recommend a Mac. Likewise, many gamers adore PCs built with AMD chips, which (supposedly) operate at lower temperatures and more efficiently on a clock-cycle basis. Thus, these gamers can invalidate their warranties and configure their systems to redline with less danger of melting the chip.

Without knowing what you want to do with your system, it's hard to recommend anything. However, there are a lot of good internet forums where nerds will be happy to offer recommendations. Try Tom's Hardware Guide.

Apple's move towards consumer-friendly devices and software is largely irrelevant to the process contained. Apple, as a company, has massive experience in switching from one hardware platform to another, so the move to Intel is a to-may-to, to-mah-to proposition.

The real deal behind the Pentium M chips is that they are cooler and faster and use less power than any version of the G5 that IBM has been able to produce. So Apple moves to the Pentium M. That's not to say that they won't keep the G5 for their towers and server products--they certainly can. They've got the pleasant advantage that their UNIX core will happily compile on Intel or RISC processors.

It's a good move for Apple. That said, I'm perfectly happy with my 667mhz Powerbook from 2001.

rho's spot on. Intel has been spending a lot of its R&D into making its processors have very low power consumption. Low power chips are much better suited for small, mobile systems which are obviously the overall direction Apple is going. Mac Mini, iPod, etc. are all trends toward mobility and miniaturization which is the growth area for apple and indeed all consumer computing. Even traditional "desktop" systems are being replaced by laptops and tiny boxes such as the Mini.

So if that is where Apple is going, the chip vendor who can provide the lowest power consumption is who they need to go with. It's not about instruction sets any more -- the RISC/CISC difference has been dwarfed by efficiency.

Will Apple finally release their OS for non-Apple hardware?

Woudn't bet on it, mojo.

Mark: and the reason Intel's got a good story in that area is that the original Pentium 4 was a disaster on price/performance and performance/heat and performance/power consumption. AMD whipped their butt among informed consumers (a percentage that's now growing) and competition did just what it's supposed to. Ain't capitalism grand?

You know, I only posted this because I enjoy these debates -- I don't understand everything you guys are saying, but I like trying to follow along, like watching a foreign film without subtitles -- and once again, the tech-heads don't disappoint.

I used to read all of Steven den beste's posts about this stuff. Never understood them, but for some reason, I enjoyed them.

Oddly enough, the XBox uses the PowerPC chip.

The PPC in the XBox is a unique beast. It's designed (basically) as a single-threaded processor, as I understand it. The XBox won't ever need to do a dozen things at once--it just plays games, or plays music, or whatever--so the processor can be optimized for that kind of application.

Or so I understand. I'm often wrong.

If you're looking for bang for buck, it ain't gonna be Apple. You buy Apple because you've got a dedicated app for it, like Final Cut Pro. The problem with freeware machines, is that they cost time. Lots of time. So like the Apple, unless you've got a dedicated app, or its your hobby, you're just not gonna get bang for buck.

True stroy: we had an Apple Engineer helping us set up an Xserve and I asked him why Apple insisted on a one button mouse. He that Steve Jobs didn't think the average user was smart enough to use two buttons out of the box. So I asked the Engineer what mouse he used on his Mac, since OSX supported all sorts of fancy mice functions. He said Microsoft's Intelimouse.

IIRC, Mr. Den Beste said that Apple was doomed (DOOMED!) because there was no way they'd ever get OSX to run on Intel processors and Motorola's performance improvements were lagging.

The new MacBook Pro inverts the bang-for-the-buck argument completely. That is a monster $2000 laptop just for the hardware, features, and industrial design. Put OS X on top of that, and you've got a sexy-ass, virus-proof honker of a computer that you'll actually enjoy using.

And as far as buying Macs for dedicated apps, you've got that backwards in my opinion. People buy Macs for lots of reasons, but they buy Windows PCs because of vendor lock-in. Most dedicated apps, like those for accounting services, cash registers, movie reservation systems, high-end games, whatever, are written for Windows. People hate Windows; they use it because they have to.

I'm not trying to sell anybody on Apple, though. I'm just stoked: It's a good day to be a Mac weenie.

you've got a sexy-ass, virus-proof

No operating system is virus-proof. If Apple gets a bigger share of the market watch as the hackers take aim. Thats how they roll.

Brewfan, it's true that there is less attention at hacking and writing viruses aimed at the mac. But if you think that is the only reason they are less prone to viruses, your just wrong. The security model of os x (and UNIX/LINUX) is fundamentally different. In order to truly compromise the system in any meaningful way, root or a specific user privileges must be gained. Not so with Windows, its full of holes.

Not saying os x is bullet-proof, but just much more secure by design.

I used to read all of Steven den beste's posts about this stuff. Never understood them, but for some reason, I enjoyed them.

That's just really fuckin' sick.

Not saying os x is bullet-proof, but just much more secure by design.

Then we agree! I do, however, have the opinion that if Apple lowers their price point and gain a bigger share of the market, hackers will devote more time and energy to hacking os x. Why? Because hackers do it for the challenge and the glory. I would also note that its a little unfair to suggest to newbie Apple owners that their systems are 'virus-proof'. In this day and age of 'always on' broad band connections its not good to mislead people into believing their systems are secure out of the box. Buffer overruns are not the only way to compromise a system.

"I would also note that its a little unfair to suggest to newbie Apple owners that their systems are 'virus-proof'. "

Especially when many of the updates Apple releases are patches for security flaws. Its just that they've got such a small installed base that few people notice.

Operating systems are becoming transparent to the user, and with software like Macdrive (by Mediafour) crossplatform integration is becoming easier every day. Apple has to lower its price point to compete. The Macbook Pro is nice (I'll be buying one), but for similar money you can get an Alienware laptop that'll blow it away.