Nickname: Wim

Review: I never really understood why Apple chose this moment to switch CPUs. It is clear to anyone that the X86 line is running out of steam and will be replaced by something multitasking or 64 bits. So they will have the next transition in a few years. Nice for their customers who will again be left with software that doesn't run on the next generation. If they really wanted to change at this time they should have considered the Cell. But of course that doesn't have a low energy laptop edition.

Date reviewed: Jan 31, 2006 9:41 PM

Nickname: Michelle

Review: The title of the article is misleading! Any article about Apple is going to attract eyeballs and the age old Apple vs. Windows debate. Companies are in business to make a profit. Hello consumers. Welcome to reality.

Date reviewed: Jan 26, 2006 4:46 AM

Nickname: zatom

Review: The title is acceptable, and the article informative. The title does not suggest that Apple makes more money with the Intel Chipset vs the IBM Chipset. Financials in the machine are clearly stated and the article is nicely written. Benefits and Negatives are provided. And best of all, the author does not attempt to sway the reader. Additionally, I don't see the editorializing found in many AP or UPI articles. Thank you Hesseldahl.

Date reviewed: Jan 25, 2006 2:50 AM

Nickname: Frank L

Review: I think the title of this article is extremely misleading, and actually 180 degrees in contradiction to the article's own conclusion. Apple's costs, once packaging, peripherals and software is factored in does *not* make the iMac a "cash machine". The article states that Apple actually pays *more* for the Intel chip than for the previously used G5, so if anything, the new Intel iMac is *less* of a profit-maker than the previous G5. I am disapointed with BusinessWeek for this article -- as I am with any new organization that misrepresents the facts.

Date reviewed: Jan 23, 2006 4:57 AM

Nickname: Kevin

Review: Sure - so they're supposed to sell it for cost? WHO CARES. God forbid they make a profit.. Now how about some real news

Date reviewed: Jan 23, 2006 12:29 AM

Nickname: Flip

Review: I've never known IBM Microelectronics (the fab division) to give anyone a special deal. They broke Cyrix and AMD never seems to be able to reach a fabbing agreement with them. nVidia is probably one of their bigger customers and look how much their newer tech video cards sell for. Maybe the IBM/Intel comparison needs some adjustment. Initial hardware outlays are also a very small portion of TCO for MACs.

Date reviewed: Jan 21, 2006 5:51 PM

Nickname: aldus

Review: I am tired of reading incorrect marketing information. If we go back to G3. It was faster and less power consuming than ADM/Intel. Ars technica has made processor test half year ago. G5 was faster, but osx was not optimized for large number of multitasks. My feeling is that Apple never optimized osx for PPC and therefore osx runs faster on Intel, ie Jobs has all the time waited for a perfect time to change to Intel. IBM has know this. IBM is also a small player at the processor market and made huge increaments for each processor. It has been hard for IBM and anyone else to focus on both speed and low power consumption.

Date reviewed: Jan 21, 2006 1:20 PM

Nickname: charleslanger

Review: HHMmmm, no chastizing of Apple for its proprietary bent, closed OS, leaving IBM for an Intel that is inferior in performance to AMD-- an Intel itself chastised for being too hot and near the end of its upscaleability(where do the writer and editor get their knowledge?), leaving IBM at just the right time to miss out on porting to the new Cell processor(100 times more powerful than the best Intel one)? Come on!! For what one gets in the iMacs, one can get a more powerful system for less money-- they'll need a super-clever marketing effort to succeed, and as well hope no other company makes a better iPod....ot they're toast.

Date reviewed: Jan 20, 2006 11:47 PM

Nickname: Paul

Review: Based on benchmark tests published by MacAddict, it appears that our egos and pride may take some bruising. They show that dual core G5 Macs beat dual core Intel Macs every single time. The dual core Intel iMac is often faster than the single core G5 iMac, but that's not a surprise. Is that really a fair comparison? But against dual core G5s of the same clock speed, it loses. This may explain why all of the game box manufacturers, including Microsoft, are going with a IBM G5 variant. Clearly, there is no spectacular improvement here. This requires more work from third party developers to support an already tiny market share, this is a huge risk. It still is not clear that the rewards are worth it. At least one trade publication noted that Apple's Steve Jobs and Intel's Paul Otellini are friends. Perhaps the reason for the switch isn't price, or performance. Perhaps the decision is based on good old fashioned friendship.

Date reviewed: Jan 20, 2006 8:57 PM

Nickname: Rich

Review: The physical cost of the computer is only one element of the price. What so many tech journalists fail to take into account is that Apple, unlike any other PC manufacturer, develops its own operating system and a huge suite of applications that ship with the computer. They HAVE to be included in any cost analysis, or it's just not a fair comparison. I'm not trying to be an Apple zealot here, just a realistic person. Apple has to cover its costs for the software it includes. Other manufacturers (DELL, anyone?) don't.

Date reviewed: Jan 20, 2006 5:28 PM