No.

Its for a series a reasons:

a) Its all about the notebook (majority of sales) and IBM had no lowerpower chip( and the one they just announced sucks compared to yonah and merom.

b) a real roadmap (for the first time ever in apple's history? ;)

c) a trojan horse to get windows sales as vista falters and people are sick of viri

And as for linux.... never happen... Open source simply has no taste. The can program but they can not design. Yes I am generalizing but its almost completely true.

Not to dwell but Eazel failed when trying to bring a good UI to linux and United Linux did also(?) as that was the only way linux had a chance if the vendors said we are ALL going to use this one interface...

Not quite. The real reason for the switch to the X86 architecture had to with the inability to release a G5 with the power consumption level to be low enough to fit in a powerbook. As it is, the dual-core centrino technology that will likely be used in the powerbooks is quiet, cool, and powerful; more than can be said about the current line of powerbook chips.

I think that looking for conspiracy theories here is going to lead around in circles. Linux' open source architecture symply makes it incapeable of ever truely becomming a player. It doesn't even compete in the same marked that Apple does. Apple is NOT a system software compay like M$, it is a hardware company. The bulk of Apple's profits come from the machines themselves, not the OS. Thus apple isn't really competeing with Linux.

Apple is not a hardware company, but primarily software and UI design company.

I think it's misleading to look at where Apple gets its profits to see where its real strengths lie. For example if Apple sold the greatest hardware on earth and it's OS sucked would Apple have the following they have today, and been able to maintain over the years?

I doubt it. The secret "sauce" is the OS and the quality of applications that the platform affords developers to build.

Cheers.

Apple IS a hardware company. They used to make Apple ]['s, then Macintoshes, and now their current hardware platform is the iPod, where OS X and minis and stuff are just supporting components. Think "really expensive docking station".

By switching to 100% Intel, Apple was probably able to negotiate much better prices on XScale processors for the iPod, which translates to lower prices (higher volumes and higher profits) and new features like video or wireless.

Also Centrino chipsets are miles ahead of anything Apple would ever be able to get from IBM. Even ThinkPads use Centrino chipsets.

I understand about the power issues. But these could have been fixed. I think the biggest reason for the switch has to do with DRM. Intel has just about all the players lined up to follow through with their DRM chipset. This makes iTumes and iMovies (?) much more mainstream and more easily protected.

Oh, come on. Apple is a software company, first and foremost. True, they make the hardware too--they have traditionally made the whole widget. And the mid-90s cloning experiment was a total failure.

But, what it comes down to is that few people choose Apple hardware over PC hardware because of its tech specs. Some may buy it because of the cool-looking enclosures, but in that case, they're buying the case, not the hardware.

The OS and GUI are what makes a Mac a Mac (and an iPod an iPod). Without them, there would no point at all in buying Apple hardware. Apple is a software company. They may make more money through hardware sales, but they have to drive those with software development.

The real reason Apple switched is supply and demand. Apple, though it has been gaining market share slowly, is still very much a niche market. Yet they make high-handed demands of their chip makers, who often produce specific chip designs for Apple (and can't really sell them to anyone else). Apple has had bad luck getting chips supplied for ages, and it's not likely a Motorola problem or an IBM problem. It's the way Apple does business with them. There's a good ArsTechnica article about this.

Intel, on the other hand, deals in very high-volume production of chips already designed for personal computers. This way, Apple doesn't have to wait for or demand specific hardware designs for their relatively-small installed base.

Basically, Apple went with Intel because IBM wouldn't produce new chip designs fast enough for them. The decision makes sense; I just don't buy the Apple-as-hapless-victim scenario.

As for trying to sell Windows and Linux PC owners/users into OS X, I don't think that's Apple's immediate plan. I think we could easily see another PowerComputing scenario, where everyone eats into Apple's hardware sales. Not a good move right now. But I think everyone can admit it gives them the option to leverage more power in the future.

Having said that, it's true that Linux is also gaining market share. Some people theorize that people are migrating to Linux just to get away from Windows. And a public Intel-based Mac OS X installation would certainly give them a an easier and more standardized option.

Oh, and I'm sure that Apple knows about the DRM features of Intel's chips, but if you think that's the reason they're going through this huge migration to another hardware platform... that's so ludicrous I don't even know how to respond.

Hmm, it didn't let me link... here's that article:

http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars

I am not convinced about Intel move especially having used a 10 gb specialized dual xeon for movie editing recently.

Machine did NOT act like its Mhz with top of the line Adaptec SCSI etc.

I think Linux reason really gives a clue especially checking the amazing speed difference between yellowdog linux and OS X server. I have no other words rather than amazing checking the benchmark.

About power usage etc... I admit I am more a "desktop type" but Freescale latest announced CPU's and PowerPC _is_ used especially on embedded systems because of LOW POWER requirements, give me a break.

Linux? Well, Linux not ready for desktop is the exact reason why I gave up x86 since it forced me to use win32 as a home user. The Linux community is full of anti social people blaming people rather than helping them. Go to any linux centric IRC network to get a clue in 5 mins.

Notice, as many of you I am path finder user so even Apple's finder was too basic and lacked some functionality for me. Now imagine Linux desktop experience.

BTW if you use Linux, support and use WindowMaker OpenStep.

I forgot something to say. IBM type companies are acting politically and diplomatically and not saying it but Apple is one of the smallest (based on total sales) PowerPC customers on planet.

Supply does not explain it...

I think someone from Cupertino tried a bargain with IBM and IBM did not care at all. Especially thinking their run away from desktop everything lately.

I believe the *real* reason Apple is switching to Intel is because (in about a year and a half) Intel will be releasing optical processors, which will run hundred of times faster than the current processors used today.

See Intel's Breakthrough on TechnologyReview.com

http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/07/issue/feature_intel.asp

Ubuntu Linux is about 90% there now. I use it and find it almost as nice as OS X.

Apple WAS a hardware company. Apple WAS a systems Company. It has always been a software company. What it is doing is morphing itself into an entertainment company. Like it or not here are some facts that are difficult to deny.

Apple or Mac has never been widely accepted into the business community as a major player - only a niche player for specific uses, mainly graphics and desktop publishing.

Mac has never been a serious gaming machine.

Mac Servers have not made significant inroads into Server Farms or IT departments

A significant segment of the educational community has now abandoned Macs.

Many apps for specific tasks are simply not available for Mac.

The majority of all software written is for Intel or Intel like processors.

What all this means is that like it or not, Mac is fast approaching EOL (end of life).

In computers Apple is heading for Universal Apps - Apps that can be run on either OS X, or Windows, or Unix (Linix) OS. They are looking to make the Apps, OS independent.

That way they can abandon computers completely, a low margin market, and go completely into entertainment, a high profit market. The future is in IPod, and IPod support products, not in Mac. Mac will just be along for the ride. It also gives Apple a smooth transition out of computers without to much agitation to its users.

I envision, after they get around the legal implications, to dropping the "computer" from its name. I also envision an entertainment system in Apple's future, with a state of the art large screen TV that all your communications hook to, that internally has a computer, similar to a IMac G5, that provides all your AV entertainment, an wirelessly hooks to your surround sound system, or has one built in, your IPod, and to smart terminals around your home. From those you watch entertainment in other rooms, play games, and balance your checkbook - i.e. do computing. This device is also your home security system, electronic mailbox, and environmental control.

Sorry but like it or not, in my opinion, the Mac will soon be history and Apple will be a different kind of company.

And where will Microsoft be in this vision - supplying a significant part of the infrastructure that runs it all. In the future there will still be room for multiple major players. Apple right now via the IPod. Notebook machines, and IMac G5, is attempting to position itself as the interface to home entertainment and the future computer infrastructure.

At least that is my opinion.

JimW,
____ I hate to demur from someone's 'opinion'--since I believe we're all entitled to having one...
but i believe you'd made a [common] fallacious assumption and confused the meanings of subjective and objective.
____I'll refrain from defining them for you and stealing from you the joy of googling it, (if you had, by chance forgotten their meanings). But the point is, in order to give a purely subjective argument and reserve the right to not have it argued against, you cant have it loaded with objective statements that, incidentally, are completely ass-backwards.
So now, after reading an extremely interesting and well-stated page full of intelligent arguments, and being surprised at the good points from all sides- I get down to the end and here is yours. And I think you should know:
%%%%%%%%%
{"Apple sucks." }= is an ‘opinion’. If I then said it were a "stupid opinion", --that would also be an opinion. An unverifiable statement; these are ‘subjective’ statements.
%%%%%%%%
You made some rather amusing ‘objective’ statements there, sweetie. But all verifiably wrong.
____ I wish I could see who you are, because I'd be surprised (and saddened) if you were not a very young person, (like, far younger than even I am). I don't mean for this to sound derogatory; It's hard to imagine that anyone born earlier than the mid-80's would even think to state such risible non-facts.

"A significant segment of the educational community has now abandoned Macs."
>>>this is a demi-truth. However, it is also true that the significant segment you speak of is nothing but a tiny fraction of an entire world full of educational communities who are switching to Macs from the cheaper pc's that were available to them in the late 90's, etc..
I was lucky enough to be born at a time when computers were cheap enough and important enough to be a part of the classroom, and for that I am eternally grateful. I also had the luck to go through over a dozen schools in several different parts of the country, and I admit: every computer I saw or touched in every single one of those schools were PCs (except for in '92- 3rd grade, there was a single apple computer in the class and all it had was a Crayola drawing application)
So for you to say that educational communities are abandoning the Mac, is strange because as far as I've seen, they have been relying on PC's already for most of this time because it was just plain cheaper. **But If anything, as schools get more funding, they are switching over to more reliable, more secure, and more stable systems. Apple systems.
And you may not realize this, but even though Intel-compatible machines are cheaper and more easily attained by schools, Apple was the one to start bringing computers to the classroom, and don't kid yourself into thinking education is not a significant part of their focus. Do a search for "apple" and "classrooms" -- take a look at what some of the country’s most important universities in the area of computer science have to say. UCLA, Stanford, Berkeley; -here, take a look at this:
http://cse.stanford.edu/class/cs201/Projects/gender-gap-in-education/page7.htm
----the one thing Microsoft did right was allow computers to be cheap enough to be bought by schools. But Apple has been GIVING to schools what they can, from the beginning. No one is going to "abandon" that.

"Many apps for specific tasks are simply not available for Mac."

>>Oh my god. this one actually warms my heart. now I'm positive you must be quite young. I am guessing you are inexperienced as hell with a Mac. How well does your Windows computer handle your ssh keys on your school's server? or take control of every possible part of your system from the command line? Or how well does your Unix/Linux box handle having Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Flash Professional 8, and Adobe Illustrator all open at the same time? and two different browsers and a couple other apps as well, can you tell me that? Because all of those apps and 5 more are open and running just fine on my PowerBook laptop as we speak.-- How often does my computer crash? Never. But my last PC crashed at least once a day.
My current system uptime? 9 days - the last time I even bothered to restart this baby was when I recently updated it. --How often do my apps crash? --Never--except of course when I open Microsoft Word, or Excel.
Surprise, surprise.
But even they can't bring the others down with them when they crap out. Nor can they take my OS with them.
Sweetie, I know literally hundreds of experienced PC users whom don't know what Unix even is. But on a Mac, Open Source and the world of Unix is inescapable.
>>>You think Microsoft is going to be "supplying the infrastructure for it all" ?!?
that is so cute! I don't think I've ever laughed so hard. Babydoll, microsoft can hardly manage to supply itself with an infrastructure. The day solid systems start migrating to Microsoft, is the day Unix, Apple, and every other company in the computer industry merge, buy Microsoft and change thier name to Microsoft. And Hell will have long since been frozen over.

"The majority of all software written is for Intel or Intel like processors."
>> I think you mean, the majority of all software SOLD.

"Apple or Mac has never been widely accepted into the business community as a major player"
>> Do you consider Yahoo! do be a significant member of the business community? Because I have quite a few friends there, and all but one of them were given PowerBooks to do their jobs on. The other got a G5 for his home desktop. If by 'business community' you mean every dime-store Trader Joe's shop that uses a computer for filing their taxes, then okay- you're right. Non-technical business people don't have the need for, nor the ability to handle a stable, serious system. That's why they're using consumer-minded products. It's easy.

"- only a niche player for specific uses, mainly graphics and desktop publishing."
>>>LOL, yes love, and why do do you suppose graphics and desktop publishing REQUIRES the use of Macs to run smoothly?
BECAUSE CISC PROCESSORS CAN"T HANDLE IT, not like Apple's RISC processors do- without crashing, without freezing, without having to make sure only one app is running at a time.
Last year, I went from a 2 Ghz PC, to a 2 year old, used, beat-up 600 Mhz PowerBook; Guess which one ran faster? Guess which ran better? Guess which one proved clock-speed is not the important factor when your hardware is not as responsible as the OS for the reliability of your system?

"That way they can abandon computers completely, a low margin market, and go completely into entertainment, a high profit market."
>>>yes, they're already doing that hun, that's part of the "niche player for specific tasks, mainly graphics" thing you said. The entire entertainment industry, the graphical arts, the professionals, rely on Mac. SO HOW can they do that if Apple abandons computers? Seriously, you think they're gonna fire up their iPod to run Avid?

"The future is in IPod, and IPod support products, not in Mac. Mac will just be along for the ride. It also gives Apple a smooth transition out of computers without to much agitation to its users."

>>>baby doll, take a look at this link:
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/A/Apple_Computer.html

They're not leaving the computer industry, love. They've made it what it is. They continue to define where it goes. Everything you think Microsoft invented, anything you think was thought of by someone else--- Apple did it. They're still doing it. If all you can see is the simple-minded consumer gimmicks they've exploited to be able to fund their technological innovations (iPod, iTunes), - well sweetie, you're probably a consumer.

And that's why they don't provide Path Finder with their systems.
It would be too much power for the average consumer to handle. The last thing anyone wants is to give Maggie May the muffin-baker the ability to have root permissions and delete her system files… Same thing goes for 7th grader, Windoze XP + iTunes-using, WarCraft III fanatics who don’t understand the importance of a umask or chmod.