Slashdot Mirror
Apple Hedges Its Bet on New Intel Chips
Corrado writes "The Mercury News is reporting that Apple is still planning to use PowerPC chips well into 2008 for its low end and portable systems. Does this increase the "warm fuzzes" for the Intel move?
More information from TheStreet and lots more links from Google News."
Has anyone ever heard of support? Apple may need the occasional extra lot of processors for years to come to support their existing support contracts.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
Steve said low end items were the first to go (mini, iBook, etc). What the hell are they talking about.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Apple is just covering their bases. This is merely a safeguard, not an indication that the move is behind schedule.
Why doesn't apple just continue to use both architectures?
This has nothing to do with the change over to Intel. Apple needs to support the warranty its existing base of G4 Macs for at least three years.
Entirely outside the ADC NDA...
If you take a look at Apple's developer tools - specifically, XCode 2.1 and above, you'll find that building binaries for both platforms is fairly easy. I think that Apple not only wanted to allow developers to build binaries for Intel and PPC, but to allow itself some time for the transition. Apple hasn't locked itself into a position where it must switch to Intel on a certain date. This is a good thing.
Really, if we can consider Mac OS X as simply OpenStep 4 (or whatever), then the CPU - to a very large extant - becomes just another part of the machine. With the exception of low level hardware driver experts, do you really care what bridge / Firewire / USB chip is used? Think the same way about the CPU, and you have Apple's apparent perspective on using Intel chips - the OS is fairly independant from the CPU, the developer tools can target multiple platforms, and consumers really won't have too much to worry about.
/* Dang, I can't type that well. */
So presumably we will again have an extended transitional period where Mac binaries have x86 and PPC code rolled together. I wonder how big an OS X Office install will be now.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
Will this be a problem for support? They'll now have to support this much more hardware, and will have to have a fork of their OS X code; or will all code be done for Intel procs now, and 'just work (tm)' via the rosetta on powerpc procs? I think they'd have to do this, but still, I think it's going to taint the marketing a bit. Still, this hasn't been done before, and it's in sits like this that Apple usually does well. As long as production can keep up...
bad_outlook
--
Is this vague enough for you?
I think you mean the point would be "moot". Based upon the stuff that Intel has been announcing lately I'm looking forward to an Intel based Macintosh and I'm not too worried about this.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
The contract into 2008 is likely because Apple needs current and future PPC processors to fulfill support agreements.
You didn't actually think that Apple would cut off PPC users the moment that the last Mac model is moved to Intel, did you?
Apple have stated that the low end will switch to Intel first, so I don't really know what the basis for this `story' is. It seems much more likely that, if they are extending their purchasing options for G4s to 2008, they will stop selling G4s at the end of this year. This would then give them a supply of G4s to use in replacements until the end of the 3-year AppleCare period for the last G4 units sold.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Good, because I just plain don't want an Intel chip. I don't care if it's the future of Apple's support, I want to keep buying PPC as long as I possibly can. I don't care if you think I'm crazy or stupid. Personally I just have a whole bunch of personal Altivec code and I don't want to have to rewrite it.
Posted as AC because every time I express that I do not want to be forced to use Intel chips in order to continue using OS X, I get screamed at for being a "zealot". I find it a bit funny that disagreeing with Apple gets you branded as an Apple Zealot now, but there it is.
Apple did say the transition would take a couple of years.
It's obvious that after the Intel bomb shell they dropped that they now need to secure supplies of current processors until the entire line has moved onto Intel.
This is common sense. (But you don't have to expect this from news sites that report, even, that Apple might be back-tracking on the Intel switch.)
Google Link and just click on the url that shows up on that page. Worked for me :)
I wish my lawn was emo, so it would cut itself.
No, the point is "moo." You know, like a cow's opinion: it doesn't matter.
English is easier said than done.
Of course, but you're missing the point.
This is a perfect opportunity to blather on with uninformed speculation, rumors, pipe dreams of dual core Antaries laptops, etc. . .
Intel has made their whole company strategy around low power high performance chips. That was the stated reason for moving to Intel. Therefore, I would think that Portables would be the first thing to move. For example, there is no G5 portable and we've been waiting a long time for a portable with a better chip than the G4. My powerBook is getting long in the tooth, but I won't replace it with another G4 powerBook - what would be the point? - unless it quit working.
The G5 desktops are still very fast and I could see staying with PPC there for a while, but not on portables.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
When an auto manufacturer ships a new engine, they don't immediately halt production of the old ones that it is destined to supplant. A phased transition is simply a reality of the manufacturing business.
Apple doesn't have to rush out an entire new line of units in one big bang. Good engineering and facility planning take time.
Umm, for like no money, they've secured access to a chip. If they hadn't, they'd be liable to lawsuits for not securing chips in case there is a problem with the transition. CYA material, plain and simple.
Apple has to support current computers with their Applecare program. Applesinsider has discussed that these go into 2008. So really, this is probably nothing more than the winding down period.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1248
But with PPCs in portables til 2008, that means software will probably support PPC into 2010, if not longer.
The Aztecs predicted the end of the world to happen on December 12, 2012. Seven years out of a mac portable? I'm satisfied.
eric http://www.ericdfields.com/
No, Apple does not plan to keep using G4s in the lower-end stuff. It'd make no sense. Apple is likely securing this contract so they have a supply of G4 chips for product repairs for the next three years, as AppleCare is a 3-year agreement.
Its amazing how most news articles will not give you the full story, or worse, you get their slanted version of events.
Reading multiple articles (not something /.'ers are likely to do since we can't even get them to RTFA) lets you get all the facts so you can draw your own conclusions.
Just my 2 pennies
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Heat? What the hell
The number one reason you havent seen a G5 laptop is heat issues. I don't see any problems running newer and newer x86 CPUs in laptops.
Hell the G5 towers need to be *water* cooled.
Furthermore, while the CISC/RISC business is correct every single report Ive read about the dev OSX86 machines (which are just regular P4s) are that they boot faster, perform faster, and are overall considerably faster than a G5.
Drop the argument, even Apple realizes it's dead.
Clarus says Moof!
The Pentium M is lower voltage and has a lower power dissipation than the current line of mobile G4s. I too wish the PowerPC would continue, because it seems like a really elegant architecture, but Intel currently has the PowerPC beat in terms of mobile efficiency.
PPC is one of the best platforms ever for both sound, gfx and of course heat production.
Is this based on more than just personal feelings about the architecture? Honestly, I like the PPC. It's a great implementation of the classic RISC principles: lots of registers, simple and fast instructions, no hardware stack, etc. But, really, this is just geeky fawning over a pretty design. The x86 is certainly ugly in some ways, mostly in terms of the huge legacy instruction set, but it's not so bad overall. Having hardware stack support is very nice. The limited number of registers makes function call overhead very low. If you disassemble code for typical PPC applications, you may see dozens of instructions for entering and leaving a function. And with each of those instructions being 4 bytes, that's a big deal in terms of instruction cache usage. So it's not entirely clear that in the modern world a classic RISC architecture is better.
Apple is not only extending the line for compatibility. If the Cell proves to be a sucesefull processor i think Apple will probably look into IBM for a nice chip contract. This way, what Apple is trying to secretly doing is to decide wich chip will target the high segment and wich one will remains for lower budget machines. Just my 2cts
People may laugh when you say `Intel' and `Roadmap' together, but they don't laugh nearly as hard as when you say `Freescale' and `Roadmap' together. I remember these guys promising 3.6GHz+ G6 chips being ready by 2002 back in the late '90s. Next to them, Intel roadmaps look positively reliable...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
This move makes sense from the standpoint of smoothing the transition to Intel chips. It may mean additional challenges for Apple's support personnel, but the bottom line is that Apple's typical customer doesn't care what chips are in the box as long as Macs act like Macs and iPods act like iPods, etc... Apple managed the transition to PPC pretty well, so there is a good chance that they'll be okay going to Intel, afterall, there isn't any big rush to do this that I've heard about.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
That's not what the deal is. Apple isn't hedging its bets. From the various articles: " Apple Computer Inc. said it has an option to keep buying microprocessors from Freescale Semiconductor Inc., three months after saying Macs will switch to Intel Corp. chips next year." Apple has negotiated for an option to buy the processors, and there is no set number of processors they will buy. Freescale just agreed to supply whatever Apple orders for the next three years. Apple could order 0. Apple could order a bunch. But probably not. They're most likely buying these processors to support the existing user base, to produce enough existing models to meet existing contractual obligations, and to be able to meet any unexpected surges in demand during the transition period. Where do people get that Apple is "hedging its bets?" Apple has bet the farm on Mac on Intel. Believe it. And don't think that for one minute the underlying hardware makes no difference. There will always be certain types of applications that will very much be hardware dependent, and yes, it DOES make a difference.
My blog
lipo -remove i386
-- i am jack's amusing sig file
No thanks, if I want to see fat strippers I'll go here: http://www.bigburlesque.com/home.html
Well, this contract is with Freescale, i.e. Motorola, who make the G4. The G4 is a pretty energy efficient processor, unlike IBMs G5. So the question here is how on earth are the going to make anybody buy a computer, portable or otherwise, powerd by a G4 in 2008?
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
My initial reaction to this was... Hmmm, maybe I can go ahead and make the plunge to buy that new G4 iBook
But has anyone thought that this may have only been done to generate that very reaction. I have been holding out on purchasing an Apple because of the upcoming Intel switch. I will, again, have to wait to see what Apple is going to do...
Note that the agreement does not require Apple to buy any addtional G4 chips
Apple is the best computer I almost bought!
Caveat Emptor, I say.
Well, this is not so much about Apple hedging its bets, as it is about timing. A lot of folks anticipate an announcment of new hardware at MWSF in January. It ain't gonna happen!
Having now seen last weeks Intel announcement, it makes me believe it is unlikely they will launch Intel based Macs with 32-bit processors. Both iMac, Pro Mac and XServe are already 64-bit and they will stay that way. Anything else would be seen as a complete failure by the market.
For the mini and portables, the picture is a bit more tricky. From what I can gather from the latest announcements from IBM and Freescale, what I think will happen is that Apple will introduce a mini with a dual core processor from IBM perhaps even in September at MacWorld Paris, and follow up with similar announcements for the rest of the product line. Exception is of course the portables where they for thermal reasons have to stay at G4 until the switch to Intel, hence the agreement with Freescale.
I have a little more detail about this in an article I wrote a couple of days ago.The future is in beta
Heh. I googled and landed on a web site that came up earlier today or yesterday in the context of "begging the question". Anyway, here's what their article says: "The mute spelling is a development that has come about because moot is now a fossil word, usually encountered only in this phrase; there is an understandable tendency to convert the unknown into the known, and mute seems to fit the new meaning rather better. But its wrong." But read the whole article for an amusing ethymological note.
Of course as an adherent of descriptive linguistics, far be it from me to agree with the author that any usage is either right or wrong, but a quick Google test seems to indicate that "mute point" is certainly less commonly used than "moot point".
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Frankly I think it's very good news, and I do think Apple stands to benefit greatly from using the same CPU as is running Windows and the majority of Linux boxes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I can see several uses: Future portable products (video player?) and spare parts. There will still be PowerBooks under AppleCare service contracts in 2008.
Apple will support PPC macs in OS X probably about seven years after the last one is sold.
That's based on older models that OS X supports today, every release it seems like back support from OS releases is about five to seven years.
We know that not all mac will switch at once, say high-end Intel macs start coming out the year after next. That's 2007, which means there will be solid PPC support from Apple until at least 2012.
WHat about software vendors? Well you can imagine they would have strong motivation to keep software working well on PPC macs until the percentage of Intel macs is a lot higher than PPC macs. But that will take some time, so I think in the end you'll see universal binaries from just about all Mac software makers until at least 2012 - and it costs them nothing to keep making the universal binaries if they decided to drop testing support for PPC versions, which could extend it out longer.
In short, buy the powerbook.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You hit the nail on the head. In fact, Apple's plans are to phase out the PPC by 2007, that means they will have PPC chips under AppleCare at least until 2010, and I'm sure they'll have many out of warranty repairs for many years to come after that.
Anybody who tries to twist this into "Apple isn't so sure about Intel" is just fooling themselves.
Apple considered the Cell and it was just not suitable.
The Cell is a general purpose PPC processor with 8 other vector processors. If your app can't be vectorized then the 8 other processors are about worthless.
However the rest of the world is going dual core general purpose CPU's. To go dual general purpose with the Cell would require 18 processors and a ton of heat.
Plus programming for Cell would be hard because nobody has done it, so there is a lack of talent out there. It would be Apple fighting the tide all over again.
Apple is now about going with the tide and controling where it will go. Going after market share and developers, which are x86 based and trained.
IBM has the big server and cluser market sown up anyway, so Apple can't sell any hardware there.
One thing that many people don't consider - does an intel chip HAVE to the of the x86 variety?
- Chris - PC, Apple and guitar Geek
What we know is Apple has secured a line of PowerPC chips into 2008. However, Apple has no commitment to buy. It being for Powerbook, etc is pure speculation on the part of the contributor and contradictory to the keynote.
Dual processor motherboards, has two sockets. One for an Intel chip, and one for a PowerPC chip. You choose which one you wish to use at the factory when you order it. If you chose one, and decided you need to run programs designed for the other, you can order that chip and have an Apple Tech put it in for you. If you cannot decide, order both chips and use them in a parallel processing.
// or PC on a card for the original PowerMacs.
Special dual-use Macintosh motherboards can be designed to work with an Intel chip, a PowerPC chip, or both.
For those who bought an Intel or PowerPC Mac without the dual-use capability, Apple will be happy to provide an expansion card with the other chip on it to run programs designed for that processor. Just like they used to have an Apple
How about we put a fire under the MAME/MESS community and they design a PCI card standard that uses Intel X86, PowerPC, 680X0, Z80, 6502, 6509, Z800, MIPS, SH4, and other processors on it, or have the sockets to add processors to it for emulators and other systems to use to run non-Native code on the processor card. Then your F/OSS software can use the PowerPC on the PCI card to run PearPC on your Intel X86 Linux PC at almost normal speeds? Stick a G4 or G5 on a PCI card, and sell it for use with F/OSS software that uses the card.
How about the Asian community makes a PowerPC socket for their Intel X86 motherboards to use it as a co-processor for emulators and other things? Just buy a PowerPC chip, clip it in the socket, run PearPC, Bochs, or whatever, and be happy with your native run PowerPC OS of choice.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
You've obviously never used a Pentium-based laptop. There is a reason why Apple is going to use the newer, cooler, mobile chips rather than Pentium chips.
Of course, it's really speculation that Apple is going to use those newer chips, but given that the timeframes for the chips' introduction and Apple's switch, it's not a big stretch...
Apple laptops can get warm, though, especially the newer, higher-clockrate ones. They're clearly pushing those G4s pretty hard. Oddly enough, though, there are no stories of Mac users burning themselves on their laptops...
"The G4 is a pretty energy efficient processor,"
So is an 8086, but you don't use it in a modern computer.
Anyone who spells it "mute" is a total looser!
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
Thanks to G3's holding down the low-end of Apple's line for so long, nearly every app on the market has a G3 code path (otherwise you'd be dumping an awful lot of relatively recent iBooks, iMacs, eMacs, etc). Rosetta simulates a G3; the application will simply take the G3 instruction path and run fine, just a tad slower. Emulating a vector instruction set like that across platforms would have been hell, and likely slower than the G3 codepath in the first place.
Only applications that are G4-only will have any trouble (damn few outside of Apple, and theirs are already Intel optimized).
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
If you went to the pain of adding Altivec enhancements by hand, then you're probably going to have no problem recoding them for Intel's SSE and such. Most major products are cross-platform and have this code written already, and most minor products just used compiler optimizations. Either the hard work is already done, or Intel will do it for them, gratis.
And as I said elsewhere, nearly every program has a G3 codepath, so Rosetta will run them just fine. Those that really got a significant boost from the G4 will be hurt the hardest, so those will be the ones you upgrade first to Intel native versions. Since such apps clearly have made an investment in the platform and have a need for speed, they're also the most likely to be ready first.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
1. Produce an Intel version of OS-X
2. Make a pretend announcement to change over to Intel
3. Leak the Intel version of OS-X
4. Let Windoze users salivate over OS-X.
5. Change back to PPC.
6. Windoze users buy PPC Macs.
7. PROFIT!!!
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Okay, I give up. Someone tell me what the hell this viral sig line is about.
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
This story is just an artifact from the announcement that Apple contracted Freescale until 2008 to provide processors. This may be simply a CYA manuver in case something goes south with the intel deal (be it delays etc).
So I'm not sure that this means you won't get your portables until 2008, just that Apple has a backup plan in case, with intel portables in 2008 as a longest possible estimate.
-T.
Problem is that Freescale (formerly Motorolla) makes G4s, not the IBM G5. Of course, it would make no sense to put a G5 processor in an Intel Mac, because if the G5 were faster, they could simply just ship a G5 Mac instead. Which is exactly what they announced: replacing the G4 with mobile Pentium M first, and transistioning the G5s later. If it were cost effective and/or technically practical to put a G5 onto a little card, they'd probably be using the G5 where the G4s are now. But they're not, so they aren't and won't. Schools weren't holding on to old //e hardware, but rather wanting to run their //e software on those Mac LCs. The PDS card was required because the Mac wasn't really fast enough to emulate the //e hardware in software. Neither problem exists in WRT the Intel Macs. OS X software runs fine natively or via Rosetta, so no hardware is necessary.
It is for warranty and repair contracts. You can get a 3 year warranty with AppleCare. The are telling there corporate/scientific users that they will honor this going forward so to reduce the risk for those buying machines now. They need to have replacement parts and machines if you buy one on the last day they will use the PowerPC. This is the reason! People over think everything Apple does.
Dude, I gotta call bullshit on your numbers. The 970FX most definitely does not dissipate 28watt at peak. Maybe at 50% idle, with the clock throttled back to 66%. The PM also has half the main-memory latency of the G5, and roughly double the integer performance.
Furthermore, Apple isn't interested in sticking Intel's current lineup in their products, they're interested in the next-gen hardware, the ones that provide roughly triple the computing performance at lower power. Did you see some of the pics from last week's IDF? 9 watts for the lower-power laptop parts, with performance to match almost anything the 970 ever did save very well-scheduled and hand-tuned FP and AltiVec algorithms, something that devs don't even have to screw with (mostly) on the x86 side, as Intel's compilers smoke the hell out of anything on the PPC side.
his has been going on since Apple was late with color displays ("The Mac doesn't need color. It has resolution"), through the day Jobs bowed down to Gates on the big screen...
Apple supported large high-resolution color displays before Windows 2.0 even shipped. Look it up. Yes, the original Mac was B&W. But starting with the Mac II the platform held a huge lead in color graphics support for years and years.
Why we won't see a G5 PowerBook/iBook...
Re:Why we won't see a G5 PowerBook/iBook...
You might also want to check out Apple's Universal Binary Programming Guidelines. Note the section titled Conventions (emphasis mine):
Apple has only give developers an IA-32 roadmap for Intel. Not a single Apple engineer has given any information about future 64-bit support on Intel processors. The reasons for this are outlined in my links above, but the bottom line is that 64-bit x86 chips cannot run the same way that 64-bit PPC chips can. A 64-bit PPC chip (the G5) can run a 32-bit operating system (Mac OS X 10.4) and both 32-bit and 64-bit applications at the same time. However, a 64-bit x86 chip can only run 32-bit and 64-bit applications at the same time under a 64-bit operating system.
This is why IA-32 will be first. Apple has not yet announced what they are going to do for 64-bit support on Intel nor have they given developers the roadmap that we need to prepare for it.
infested with jello like fishes no melotron wishes
>For example, many Mac users still run Microsoft Office
>on the Mac. Microsoft isn't obligated to offer that on
>x86 for the Mac, now that the five year deal has expired.
Why did Microsoft come on stage at the Keynote and publicly promise to offer Office/x86 then?
> This is more about keeping options open in
> case the Intel transition doesn't come off.
I don't think you can know that now.
The P4M is pretty much gone. Everything shifted to the Pentium-M a while ago with Apple looking to the the Merom for their Intel generation computers. The Merom is dual core @ 35W max with 1-2W nominal @ 65nm. I'm not a rah-rah Intel kind of guy (I own stock in AMD), but they really got something with this next line if they can deliver on their 65nm process.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
Apple will be transitioning all their G4 product beginning in 2006. They contract Frescale till the end of 2008, which 3 years - the length of a typical applecare extended contract. So, I guess they only intend to sell these systems till the end of this year. Given the recent announcements of Intel processor lineup, I guess Apple will release new Powerbook, iBook, and mac mini's along side Intels release of dual-core and single Yonahs.
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
um, yes...I have. The point is that the Intel "mobile" chips are an alternative in the Intel world. There is no alternative in the PowerPC world. Which means that they can't make anything other than hot laptops, whereas cool intel or amd based laptops are easily available.
Was just saying I didn't realize until recently just *how* hot it was. With no alternative, I can see why that was a major platform change issue.
They need a piece of news to keep people interested in PPC Apple products.
Been to Fry's since the announcement? No electricity in the air.. Just a bunch of high-priced, under-equipped machinery.
Those G4 iBooks won't sell themselves, especially not when they are presumed to be the last of the breed. Who wants that?
See IDF news for the answer to that... Apple will incorporate Intel's newest processors from 06/07, meaning processors like Yonah, Merom, Conroe, and Woodcrest. They are all based on an entirely different microarchitecture than the Pentium 4.
Ars has a much more thorough and thoughtful take from someone who actually follows Apple and has some common sense.
Except the PPC has instructions to save multiple registers at once to memory. So you can save registers 3-8 to the stack in one 32-bit instruction. I assume the compilers you are using do not do this for parameters because it's faster not to. Much like x86 xor'ing a register with itself instead of setting it to zero.
So I would question what kind of functions these are that you say are takin 20+ instructions. But also, ultimately performance has little to do with the overhead of functions since the vast majority of time is spent in simple loops.
What you say is correct though, that functions are more wasteful on PPC, but another way to look at it is that languages like Java will run insanely fast on PPC since they hot spots are often inlined 5 or more functions deep -- something that is basically impossible with a language like C or C++. That means no function calls, and using up all the registers for something useful. RISC may be a poor choice for C... true dat.
If you use the right libraries endian issues are automatically corrected.
No, not at all. Particularly for any software which implements networking protocols (other than character strings based protocols like HTTP), you'll get bugs porting from big-endian software (which don't per se need to use htonX(), as the byte order is the same), to little-endian. Other things will break, where a programmer manipulates data naively. Little-endian systems tend to discourage such naivety pretty quickly, simply cause little-endian is so odd.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Apple is very confident.
The people working on the Intel transition are aware of the risks, and are addressing them like the consummate professionals they are. I talked with a lot of them at WWDC 2005, and they know what they were doing, and they know what roadblocks could come up and bite them.
You cannot repair or replace a G4/1.5 powerbook motherboard with any processor Intel ships. By having supply through 2008, they can satisfy any Applecare requirements they may have. This alone would justify their contract with freescale. After all, Applecare is three years, and they are going to be selling laptops with G4 processors until early 2006.
Further, depending on Intel's price points, there may be a place for G4 iBooks or Mac Minis for a few months after introduction. Apple currently sells laptops and minis ranging from $500 to $3000, which is a very big range. It is not clear to me just how quickly they will change every segment of their laptop and mini offerings. Certainly, the high end laptops will change fast, as Apple is getting creamed in that market. For a mini, though, where battery life is not a critical factor, but price is?
The only concrete statement we have comes from WWDC - they will have something running by WWDC 2006, and will have completed their transition by the end of 2007. That is a two year range, in which every machine must change. I am betting that the G4 will vanish overnight, but I am not going to bet the farm, and having an insured supply of chips means that Apple is not going to either.
It takes confidence to make a change this drastic. I, for one, am in favor of it.
Scott
--- scott_ellsworth@alumni.hmc.edu Java, Databases, and Software Magic