> >> thanks for those in-depth explanations. while i can see your point >> technically, this still doesn't explain why in 3 years (34 months >> to be exact) our powerbooks have gone from 1ghz to 1.67 > > Perhaps you've been caught up in Intel's marketing where the bigger > the Ghz number, the better it is. This is simply not so. again, this is an un-educated opinion, but what i was trying to say is that our laptops don't SEEM to have evolved as much as the pc laptops in terms of speed. have the intel laptops also only evolved 67% in the past 32 months? i don't know… > > Check out the IBM Power5 - a processor with 36 MB L3 on a 256-bit > bus and bandwidth of 20+ GB per second to the memory bus, per cpu > core. It would take a room full of the hottest boxes Intel could > build to match one Power5 p-series IBM server in raw power. Sure > the Power5 is designed for high-end mainframes, big-iron Unix > servers and supercomputers. But like the G5 (a Power4 derivative), > that cutting edge technology is the eventual basis for the desktop > processors we all use. you don't have to convince me, i'm with you… > <snip> > > Admittedly Motorola lagged in development of the 74xx (G4) series > of desktop processors because it simply wasn't profitable for them > to stick big resources in it. The embedded market is much more > lucrative for Motorola (now their Freescale Semiconductor > spinoff). That's why Apple went to IBM. that's exactly what i mean, what happened with moto could possibly happen with ibm. why are the new game consoles equiped with ppc? because they're better… but microsoft will be selling millions each quarter where as apple only sells a hundred or so thousand units… i thinks apple's move comes down to not being dependant on one supplier of chips… anyway, i'm looking forward to those new macs. it might be the begining of a new era for the mac. good night alexandre :: 17" 1.5ghz powerbook / 1.5gb / 80gb / X.4.3 ::