I really love the Mac - even tho i use pc's 99% of the time - but i don't see how this is really going to impact Microsoft that much. Don't get me wrong, i think this is a great move, especially considering Gx processors are RISC based to boot, but Mac's are (historically) more expensive than similar performing pc's. Since the whole movement towards Linux is based on coupling stability with a significantly lower total-cost-of-ownship it's not likely to make many inroads in that paradigm. Another major segment would be in the staid world of AIX/BSD/Solaris etc *nix variations and IBM/Sun/Toshiba etc Big Iron, but the players in this segment are all about track record, which Apple would have to work VERY hard to establish - in time. Third segment would be that niche area where companies/departments are reliant on integrating Mac's & *nix boxes, which Apple may very well be able to lock up. Just don't see Microsoft in most of this...then again, i was thinking of setting up Linux & Apple centric LANs to go with my Win2K workgroup @ home.... ;-)

You mentioned the well-known fact that Apple's are less performing machines than their Intel/AMD counterparts. Why is it that there is so less bang for the buck?

I still don't understand how Apple can be even as popular as it is while maxed out at 1.25 ghz?

Well, that's a bit deceptive, since your mixing CISCs with RISCs machines, and they really DON'T compare directly. Most ppl use the almighty xHz as a measuring stick, when it really hasn't been valid since early on in the introduction of so-called x586 machines. Truth of the matter is that each architecture - or should i say the execution of each architecture - is significantly different in what they do EFFICIENTLY. Going back "a bit" the Amiga was the preeminent video production machine, the Macintosh the apple int the eye of all computer graphic artists (sorry, couldn't resist the apple thing!) and the ubiquitous PC the king of the rest. With the exception of the Amiga platform, that still holds pretty much true through today, whereby pc's are historically much more efficient at cpu intensive tasks and file storage, while being relative poor with ram and video intensive tasks - the very fortes of the Mac. So, we really shouldn't be asking which machine is "better" per buck spent, per se, but rather what it is that the machine needs to accomplish and which one makes a better match for the appointed task(s). After all, you could buy a cheap box and throw a coupla nics in it and have a poor man's router, or you could go out and get a CISCO piece, which would cost more up front but which would be a much more suitable device for network management.

ok, I'm thinking this is my cue to stop trying to talk about what I don't know much about before I make too big of a fool out of myself

I've finally been lucky enuf to get my hand on a mac and I've been playing around a bit ... maybe not enuf

we dont leanr if we dont ask - and boy do *i* ever need to ask! ;-)

I think my problem is that I'm holding a grudge b/c at home I have all those nice P4s and AMD Athlon XPs and here at school I've got an iMac (not even a G4 tower )

hmmmm..... maybe i was a bit too quick on my the trigger on my earlier post re markets for OS X... http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2002/1202macmanage.html

this is cool and all but xfree sucks. directfb is so much coooler

I heard on TechTV that Apple has OSX running on some PCs...any ideas on how that could be done?