6/7     Why Intel? why not AMD?  They both run on notebooks(unlike the G5)
        Also, does this pave the groundwork for porting OS X to all PC
        machines?
        \_ You know, you guys are trying to find good technical reasons
           for the move. I think it's actually simpler than that. Economics.
           IBM can't produce their chips cheaper than Intel, which we all
           know is kicking TI and other microprocessor fabs. IBM simply can't
           sell their chips to Apple at competitive market rate. The
           mundane technology of integration is driven by business, not
           technology.
        \_ Intel has the best laptop chips and once Apple has made the
           transition it'll be easy to move to AMD if they want to.
        \_ PC BIOS is a fundamentally different architecture than the Mac.
           \_ I wonder.  Macs these days use mostly commodity hardware.
              What differences will remain?  The BIOS?  Motherboard type?
              \_ PC's have a BIOS.  Macs have real firmware. -dans
                 \_ Alas, not on Intel:
                        http://csua.org/u/cae (adc)
                    See "Specific Scenarios->Open Firmware" - ciyer
              \_ Each Mac will come standard with a little slice from the ego
                 of Steve Jobs.
                 \_ Which is where they get the hot air to blow out the back.
        \_ Intel has good support for DRM. (Why delete this MOTD censor?)
           \_ It does?  Cite?
        \_ Apple may not want to limit itself to x86.
        \_ Apple is trying to get away from a marginal chipset, why replace
           it with another one?
           I haven't seen enough discussion to know about the larger
           implications; will OS X be able to run on Dells?  There's a
           lot of risk for Apple either way.  -tom
        \_ In the short/mid term, Apple is unlikely to let other PC vendors
           sell OS X (of course, the hackers will make it possible). NeXT
           took about two years to solve all the driver problems that affects
           most users of generic x86 hardware and peripherals. However, moving
           to x86 would let Apple open OS X up to Dell & other select vendors
           in the future if they wanted to do so. However, not likely... one
           of Jobs' first things he did when he came back to Apple was to end
           the Clone Wars.
        \_ This is all about laptops and Athlon 64 can't compete in that
           space in the foreseeable future.  Also Apple probably wants to
           get at the pentium risc[?] core w/o the x86 microcode at some
           point in the future.
           OS X will probably never run on a non apple branded machine
           legally. While the x86 mac's will have a bios (so Windows might
           be installable on them), they will likely have a special apple
           boot rom (the dev machines supposedly have this already) which
           is needed in order to boot OS X. Unless you own an apple x86
           system you can't get a legal copy of the rom so no legal OS X
           on dells.
           The bigger question is WHY you would want to run OS X on a dell
           anyway?  Is OS X that much more compelling than Windows/Linux?
           \_ OS X is much more compelling than Windows/Linux.  And you'd
              want to run it on a Dell because Dell makes inexpensive hardware.
              I would also run it on my Sharp laptop in a second, if it were
              possible.  -tom
              \_ I run OS X on a daily basis and I still don't see why
                 it is more compelling than Windows/Linux. I agree that
                 it is nice and all but most of what I like about Macs
                 has less to do w/ OS X and a lot to do w/ the hardware:
                 ADC (w/ OSD of my monitors controls), deep sleep, power
                 on from the kbd, low noise, multiple firewire ports, &c.
                 I could easily buy a Dell but I don't b/c I can't get
                 these hardware features from any vendor other than Apple.
                 NOTE: I might not "get" it b/c I used to buy Macs for
                       purpose of running LinuxPPC b/c I liked Mac hardware
                       better than PC/Sun hardware (though the SS20 was
                       a NICE system, too bad there was no IDE support).
                 \_ Interesting. I am less enamored with Apple's hardware.
                    I do like my G4 Powerbook's sleek form factor and large
                    17" screen, though. What makes Apple interesting to me
                    again is OS X. UNIX-like and also runs applications
                    like Office and Photoshop. It's the best melding of
                    Windows and Linux. In fact, I run VMWare on a
                    Windows/Linux box to achieve the same things I get
                    with OS X. The Intel h/w is superior to Apple's, IMO.
                    I don't even care about any of the 'advantages' you
                    mentioned. --dim
           \_ Yes, it is.  However, part of its beauty is its tight
              integration with the hardware and the lack of all the misery
              generic x86 hardware and peripherals imposes on its users with
              little incompatibilities.  The "OSX on Dell" idea is kind
              of a cruel joke.