Quoting Chris Olson <chris.olson at astcomm.net>: > On Nov 14, 2005, at 8:27 AM, Ondra Soukup wrote: > Full official Apple's support for PowerPC until 2009 > > Considering that new PowerPC boxes will be sold yet in 2007, and > AppleCare coverage on those boxes will extend to at least into 2010, > Apple has to provide full official support beyond 2009. > > Further, with the (finally) recent addition of the PowerMac quad to > Apple's high-end lineup, and nothing that can touch it on the present > or future Intel roadmap for "power per watt", you can rest assured > that PowerPC is going to be supported by Apple well beyond 2010. You > can't even match the upfront *price* of a PowerMac quad with AMD's 64- > bit dual-core offerings, much less match it on Intel, which is more > expensive yet. > > Comparing the Intel and PowerPC roadmaps, Intel is going to have to > pull a rabbit out of a hat in 2007 or Apple would be nuts to pull the > PowerPC processors out of their high-end boxes and replace them with > x86. Especially with Intel's bottom line not looking too good as of > late, with AMD outselling them in the last quarter. Dell computer is > the one and only manufacturer on the planet that uses Intel > exclusively. And their bottom line isn't looking too good either. > Suppose there's a reason Dell is sporting AMD64's on their website now? > > I don't believe Apple will join that fray. > > If you need a PowerBook now I would buy it and not wait for the Intel- > based machines because PowerPC is going to be around probably longer > than Intel will. Apple can't survive exclusively using Intel > chipsets any more than Dell can because, for example, their Xserve > would get literally walked on by multiple-core AMD server boxes that > cost less than Intel/Xeon powered machines. But that's just my opinion. I have to agree with you there, Chris. Apple will certainly have to consider the AMD processors, as well as the continuation of PPC ones well into the forseeable future. Best, Henry