On Jun 4, 2005, at 12:40 AM, Neil wrote: > I know we always here people wishing for the Mac o/s on Intel > chips, but I > think those wishes come from people who don't realize that Intel > chips cost > much more, run hotter, and provide little if any performance gain > in running > multi-media type applications like Photoshop. This is true about them (Intel) running hotter, but remember, the Intel world (see AMD) are running dual-core chips for one thing. For another, Water cooled processors (Hmm, who uses them) have done great things when it comes to cooling the systems down, and Apple knows a thing or two about system cooling. I am not sure the chips are more expensive, having built some Intel machines myself, I believe the actual CPU prices are a bit lower over all, (hence the lower building cost) of the machines. As for performance, I believe the OS and the way it is designed would be able to take advantage of the faster chips, possibly getting us to a dual core, >3GB unit sooner than it seems we may be able to reach it with the current chip builder.. I am sure that if Steve is considering this, he has weighed the performance, heat and cost factors, not to mention the possible stalling of business growth that would be caused by such a move. My concern, like it mentions in the article, is that the developers who have been loyal to Macs different OS changes could indeed get tired of the changes, and opt for another area to work in. I do, of course, like the possibility of a direct "in your face" challenge to Windows on their own turf. JMHO