Apple to Intel: Not fussed

Those who know me well will be aware that I am rather passionate about Macs. I have the fervour of a convert bemoaning the pain and energy wasted over years of Windows and OS/2 use.

So I won't deny I responded to yesterday's announcement with befuddled shock… RISC is better, I muttered; what about AltiVec's speed enhancements, I wondered and so on. How could this be happening???

But it really does make sense for Apple from performance, cost and future growth perspectives. Graphics cards etc. will be cheaper – no special Mac editions I reckon, and with IBM distracted by Xbox et al I can't see Apple getting what they want from the Big Blue. As I type on my 1Ghz PowerBook, now the slowest machine in the Kitcat household thanks to 2 new Mac Minis, I know that a G5 PowerBook won't happen. So what? I didn't care about the Motorola chip in my first Mac and I won't care about the Pentium in my next PowerBook, Macs work and Jobs know that's why people buy.

Strategically PowerBooks (and other low power devices) is the main reason behind this switch and TidBits had the choice quote to explain it all:

Citing each company's processor roadmaps beyond 2006, Jobs said that the PowerPC provides 15 “units of performance” per watt, while Intel's processors will be able to offer 70 units per watt.

Wow that's a big difference.

'Nuff said. Coming next, some Long Tail of e-Democracy thoughts…