Apple and Intel

I should probably work this into a larger piece sometime, but I think a quick observation is worthwhile. I've noticed with the Intel switch, some Mac advocates have suddenly realized that Dell does make a cheaper computer than Apple, while many PC users who would never have considered an Apple now find Apple enticing.

It is amazing how a little CPU could inspire people to swap positions. Yes, Apples with Intel processors do not have the mystical quality that Apples with PowerPC did. PowerPC was a RISC processor and that made Apple seem a bit more exotic. I liked it well enough. But, I care more about my apps and speed than I do about how “cool” my processor sounds. If, as most will now admit, Intel's Core microarchitecture blows the consumer variants of POWER out of the water in most ways, why not enjoy that and keep on using your beloved OS? Frankly, if I wanted to go with Dell's $399 special, it was just as valid to do so against a PowerPC G4 PowerBook as it is against a Core Duo MacBook. And anyway, if you compare Apple against other premium brands with very thin metal enclosures, lighter weight units, etc., I think the MacBook family still comes out favorably.

The reverse switch to being intrigued by Apple is a lot more explainable. Macs are now the only computer that can run the three biggest desktop OSes legally. With Parallels well designed virtualization, they are also really decent at running Windows applications. And, since Windows can replace Mac OS X if desired, there is far less risk in taking the plunge than before. I think that helps a lot. Even die hard Mac haters like how Apple is squeezing the latest PC technology into sleek, small machines.

The latter group does not mystify me, the former does. Personally, I think the days of processor brands defining how much awe a system should get are fading away quickly.