"Darkelldar" wrote:

Yes, Apple had to go into Intel and shake them to build a
powerful
enough processor worthy of OSX. The Intel Core Duo was the first that

I don't think that Apple had anything to do with Intel developing the Core
2 Processor, AMD had the better CPU for a number of years taking market
share from Intel. Intel came back with the Core2 now AMD is following
behind.

Yes they did. You didn't follow the story when it was happening. Steve
had Paul Otellini gather 1,100 Intel employees to work on the Mac
processor project... then once they were finished, Steve even had Paul
don a Bunny Suit and present Steve with the first wafer. Picture is here.

http://snipurl.com/1adj6

was almost a match for what IBM was doing with their PowerPC processors.
PowerPC is still faster of course, especially in math but Intel is
starting to show some head way.

Then why switch to Intel if the PowerPC is a faster CPU ?

It's because IBM was scared of Apple quickly moving up the SuperComputer
Rankings, so they put on the brakes. Look at the new Photoshop CS3
benchmarks, the Quad PPC still out performs the Quad Intel Machines.
Granted this is in high end / math operations, but it's what high
powered users want. So far, Intel is still behind the PowerPC "for power
users". In time this will change of course, but currently PowerPC is the
better chip. Look at all the game platforms, they all use PowerPC... not
Intel!

Then I will for sure stay far away from those new Mac's using the Intel
Core2 processors because your OSX is far to good to run on IBM PC parts.

Yes, you can't really run a sophisticated OS such as OSX on top of a box
of old IBM "parts", it requires more elegant hardware designs to support
apps such as this...

So why go with Intel, ATI and nVidia parts in the Mac Pro. Makes it just a
PC like mine AMD 4200 x2, ATI X1900 XTX, nVidia based MB.

Excepts those are just "parts", the MacPro totally outruns your system
since Apple does MB engineering unlike any of the PC Vendors or White
Box vendors. All you are doing is putting a bunch of parts together...
Apple doesn't do that, it actually "engineers" the whole system, thus
you get a lot more performance for the price.

http://www.apple.com/macpro/specs.html This is your Link Ted

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat/

AMD is showing some promise on the very high end, but AMD doesn't yet
have a consumer level processor able to run OSX at the level Apple
requires.

You are really not making any sense here, Is it the PC Hardware or the MS OS
you dont like because you are swinging both ways here by saying the OSX is
to sophisticated for hardware that Apple itself uses with its systems so
taking that into account Apple computers should have no problems at all
running Windows Vista because of its hardwares sophistication over an IBM
PC.

I'm simply saying "it's an entire system approach" that makes the best
product for the user. Yes, OSX is 50% of the equation, and Apple
Hardware is another 50%, but you can't put Vista on Apple Hardware and
have it work as well as OSX does on the same hardware. Same as you can't
put OSX on regular Intel hardware and have it work as well as a Mac.

It's a "system" and it will forever outshine what is available to
Windows / Intel users since there is no vendor strong enough in the
WinTel space to build the entire widget. (Sun maybe, but you pay a lot
for that)