On 06 Jun, 2005, at 15:16, Dave Higgins wrote: > On Jun 6, 2005, at 2:07 PM, Stephen Jonke wrote: > >> Apparently Apple has compiled OS X for Intel since day 1. They've >> always had the ability to move to Intel, and now they are doing so. > > I'm kinda curious what kind of performance comparisons they've been > getting with those Intel ports. As I have understood it from the beginning -- the best performing architecture for OSX was the Alpha, followed by the SPARC and then Power. Sparc and Alpha were dumped for a variety of reasons early in the game ... leaving only Intel and Power. Intel and Power are the only two architectures still in existence with any kind of development future. The original IA64 was a disaster for Intel. It never achieved any of its performance or power consumption goals. Intel bought the Alpha process engineering staff and technology from Compaq just before Compaq announced they were being bought out by HP. The "next" version (2006-7) of the IA64 (I don't know its name) will be "Alpha-inside." Now of course, what I'm talking about here is the same problem that IBM has with the Power chips -- they are destined for high- performance, high-end, enterprise class servers ... i.e. expensive. This WAS Intel's roadmap for the IA64 "before AMD" (proved that they could make a 64 bit chip cheaply). My guess is that the "x86" chips that Apple will be getting will be these new generation "Alpha-inside" IA64 chips. I suspect that they will outperform anything currently on the market. Remember -- 2006/7 is a FULL GENERATION (if not 2) away from today's technology. T.T.F.N. William H. Magill # Beige G3 [Rev A motherboard - 300 MHz 768 Meg] OS X 10.2.8 # Flat-panel iMac (2.1) [800MHz - Super Drive - 768 Meg] OS X 10.3.8 # PWS433a [Alpha 21164 Rev 7.2 (EV56)- 64 Meg] Tru64 5.1a # XP1000 [Alpha 21264-3 (EV6) - 256 meg] FreeBSD 5.3 # XP1000 [Alpha 21264-A (EV 6.7) - 384 meg] FreeBSD 5.3 magill at mcgillsociety.org magill at acm.org magill at mac.com whmagill at gmail.com