switcher.

alright, here's what i don't get about this whole "intel inna mac" thing. why would suddenly changing to the least efficient processor architecture suddenly make a macintosh such a compelling product?

ok, i can understand it for the laptops. ibm basically said, "fuck you" to apple over the whole mobile G5 thing. they were too busy making the new processors for all the new game consoles to worry about the tiny sliver of the market that was apple laptops. compared with a G4, the intel core duo is actually pretty compelling.

but the desktops? i mean, if you really wanted a mac that badly, what was holding you back from the $500 mac mini? why don't people switch to mac? "there are no applications." well, guess what. that hasn't changed. ooo, yes, now you can boot into windows, but doesn't booting into windows on the mac pretty much destroy the point of buying a mac? same goes for games.

so maybe you wanted OSX. it's a pretty operating system. it really is. and it's stable, and doesn't yet have the marketshare to make it attractive to viruses and spyware. but, come on. if you had the $2000+ laying around for a macbookpro, why didn't you just buy dual G5 tower, which is still faster than the core duo?

maybe it's that the x86 intel architecture is comfortable and soothing and somehow makes the process of switching to apple less traumatic. i dunno. maybe i'm just biased, we have 2 G4s both running OS10.4, so i don't see the big deal about the intel macs. it's not like they made any other part of the hardware easy to upgrade, similar to the normal x86 boxes. a mac is still a mac. it still comes with a one-button mouse, people ;) you're still using MacOS. whatever this new compelling crack is, apple is certainly laughing all the way to the bank over it.