Nickname: AMCDeathknight

Review: I think this is a good idea it will lower the prices of the MAC and allow you to duel boot with windows/linux easily and will allow Apple to increase the programs that are avaliable. It will also allow more users to be able to learn about the different operating systems.

Date reviewed: Feb 3, 2006 2:49 AM

Nickname: Duane534

Review: Mac OS/X is just glossed over FreeBSD that ALREADY runs on Intel x86 PCs... for FREE.

Date reviewed: Feb 3, 2006 2:24 AM

Nickname: Marcos Malo

Review: Harry wrote: "The best thing is that it wont be long before Intel PCs can run OS-X and consumers will have an alternative to Windows!!" You already have an alternative to Windows. It's called Macintosh. If you are waiting for Apple to sell OS X for intel platforms independently of Apple hardware, don't hold your breath.

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 11:38 PM

Nickname: John C. Randolph

Review: Gary, I would strongly recommend against allowing windows to boot your machine directly. By running windows in a virtual machine environment like VPC or VMWare, you can render it incapable of damaging anything. Windows will still get infected with malware, but you can trivially revert to a pristine condition when it does. -jcr

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 10:48 PM

Nickname: pilotgi

Review: Just a note on factual accuracy. IBM doesn't manufacture the G4 processor. It's made by Freescale semiconductor (spun off from Motorola). I've seen this mistake in other articles also.

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 9:28 PM

Nickname: Steve Wildstrom

Review: @Anonymous Darwine is a less than optimal solution because it requires bringing up an X-windows session. That's not quite as bad as the dual-boot solution proposed by others but it still falls well short of what I think users really need--a way to run Windows (or for that matter, Linux) in a virtual machine under OS X so that you would have simulataneous access to both OSes.

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 8:22 PM

Nickname: zahadum

Review: close but no cigar ... intel apps for os/x do not require years to deliver. if developers like ms/adobe had not used an obsolete toolchain created for the transition from os/9 to OSX 5 years ago, then there would not be a performance penalty. apps that do not use the native os/x toolchain ( for cocoa) are stuck running on rosetta emulator. the correct aspect of optimization for intel - ie the one your story missed! - it is about the fact that the cocoa environment (especially the GCC compiler) hve a limited thread model, which is where the bottleneck will occur on a multi-core chip. that bottleneck is NOT unique to osx on intel ... it is true of windows, linux etc intel's hyperthreading was a transitional simulation of a true MP, so most OS's and most applications have not been optimized for highly granular and highly scable thread model. so, ironically, the author was wrong about the unimporttant stuff and missed the real issue altogether.

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 7:48 PM

Nickname: ROLLIE

Review: I am glad to see this change,it was a long time coming, I can't wait to buy a mac again. RHG

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 6:27 PM

Nickname: Gary

Review: The need for Virtual PC is abrogated by the fact that Windows should be capable of running directly on the new Intel Macs in a duel boot configuration for those who need it(unsupported by Apple). It's just a question of time (probably not much) until someone figures out how to do it.

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 5:28 PM

Nickname: Al

Review: Intel Mac is the only future for Mac. I just hope the stability of Mac OS X will be the same as it was on PowerPc. In my opinion it will not take to much time for most of everyday software will be customised for intel Mac. Rosetta seems to be good. Wish intel Mac success!!!

Date reviewed: Feb 2, 2006 12:40 PM