Ну сколько можно мусолить одну и ту же тему и извращаться в поиске новых мнений на счёт перехода Маков на Интел? Привожу текст статьи, написанной Дэвидом Эври в качестве комментария на статью Джона "Ганнибала" Стокса (известный на сатйе Arstechnica.com автор). Это, я считаю (и со мной соглашаются очень многие люди во всём мире) - наиболее полный и точный ответ на вопрос: "А есть ли смысл в использовании в продуктах Эппл процессоров от Интел" (переводить не хочу, ибо лень
)) и немного не актуально):
"Earlier this week, Ars Technica's Jon "Hannibal" Stokes published an article which claimed to show the *real* reason why Apple went Intel. In his article, 'Hannibal' says that part of the reason for IBM and Apple's failed business relationship was that Apple tried to pull 'stunts' to get more out of IBM than they were entitled.
Some are saying that the Ars article can be summarized as, 'Macintosh is the past. iPod is the future.' As you can imagine, people took issue with Hannibal's piece and many felt that his insider sources were far off the mark. Popular technology journalst, David K. Every submitted the following editorial to osOpinion/osViews, which corrects the mistakes and assumptions made by Mr. Stokes."
--
I'm getting the impression by the number of posts, reposts, articles and noise on the net, that the Mac to Intel switch is going to be a constant hum from now until a year after the switch is complete. With people speculating on Steve Jobs massive ego, and why he did it, and so on.
Ars just had an article where Jon "Hannibal" Stokes felt that he had insider information, and spun a story around it.
http://arstechnica.com/columns/mac/mac-20050710.ars
The story basically quoted an "anonymous inside source" that Apple basically messed with IBM, wouldn't place orders, expected most favored customer treatment, basically promise things IBM couldn't deliver, and that once IBM couldn't afford to cater/subsidize Apple that Apple walked. And how IBM was upstanding and professional and it was all Apple's fault.
Despite the many factual mistakes made, like Apple doesn't have enough cash on hand, that IBM had 3GHz chips on their roadmap, and so on. The point might have a shred of validity. But only if you're an IBM insider, looking at things from their narcissistic point of view. Look, Apple and IBM both have ego's. To pretend that IBM is immune and Apple is arrogant requires complete denial about IBM's corporate culture.
I don't doubt from IBM's point of view, that Apple was a small player in their market, demanding major concessions for a few million chips a year. So they strong armed Apple, charged them for the support chip design, and would charge them for custom board work, didn't have them as a priority, and so on. Face it, to IBM Microelectronics, Apple was at most a significant customer -- and to IBM as a whole, Apple was a minor competitor. Apple was never a priority for IBM, and was never going to be.
Now put yourself in Apple's shoes. IBM and Motorola promised all sorts of things, and had failed to deliver for a decade. Promise after promise was failed to deliver on. There were always good and rational excuses, but excuses are made for failures. So you're Apple, trying to sell the most computers, and your primary supplier (Motorola) was incompetent and unfocused on the Chips you needed to sell your computers, and thus they screwed you for years by not making your priorities their priorities.
So you go to your secondary supplier, and what happens? The same thing over again. Mainstream desktop sales just weren't as important to Motorola or IBM as Apple needed. Name a company that is going to put up with suppliers that are nice, yet on't deliver and don't seem to care much about your needs. That's the point.
Intel gives Apple so much. They get their shoe in the door of all companies that require "PC Compatibility". They get customers that think, "I'd try Mac OS X, but if I don't like it, what then?" But most of all, they get a supplier who's core business is supplying you with exactly the parts you need.
I don't doubt Hannibal's excellent point that using Intel processors like XScale for iPods and other Apple devices will give Apple volume discounts with Intel. But think about what that means; Apple nearly instantly becomes one of the biggest chip customers to the biggest chip supplier.
Intel will do for Apple what IBM and Motorola wouldn't; focus on Apple's needs. Apple gets chips, support chips, motherboards, design capabilities, not to mention advertising and promotional cooperation/credit (something Apple fought Motorola and IBM about for the last 10+ years).
Computer prices are going down with no bottom in sight. CPU power (Moore's law) means that the value of speed alone is diminishing -- it is exceeding our ability to use it. So MIPS wars (Millions of Instructions Per Second) just aren't going to matter as much in the future, as feature and design wars. What can you do with the MIPS to make it worthwhile.
Face it, Dell doesn't do much -- they repackage and distribute other people's designs. They're the Walmart of the computer industry, getting great prices from suppliers and passing on that savings to users. Is that the future of machines? Apple's model looks better to me. They design computers to be useful, integrate the OS and Applications to work together. They have sexy designs and style.
Cheap isn't going away -- and Dell is here to stay for a while, but if you give people a choice between a $500 Dell and a $500 Mac running OS X, having more sex appeal, style, applications and a secure OS, and Apple stands a chance to make serious inroads while also slowing the erosion to just the build the cheapest box possible. Intel gets that. Apple gets that. IBM or Motorola... they simply don't care.
Intel has technologies they've wanted to push; like a new BIOS, maybe also a version of their chips that don't have 8 or 16 bit support, and so on. Intel remembers that USB was a success because Apple created the market for it, and broke the chicken-egg conundrum. I imagine, they're better that Apple will do that for them again. IBM or Motorola doesn't care.
Hannibal's analysis failed to be insightful, because he took one point of view; probably an IBM insider, at his word, and didn't think about the other sides. He understood bits of the business, but didn't look at the big picture. Hannibal feels that volume of CPU's is what matters to Apple's business, thus the iPod devices, with their higher unit sales have obviated the Mac, and this was really about iPods as the future of Apple. That's a tad myopic.
Steve and Apple care about both, and more. They want Apple's desktop's to thrive; and Intel is a better path. Apple wants business engineering partners to help them, so they can focus on their core competency -- Intel is a better fit and is completely committed to going where Apple needs to go. Thus, they make a better partner.
Apple wants iPods to survive and thrive, and Intel may give them opportunities there as well. Imagine if Intel throws a few billion dollars at Apple for advertising compensation just to have the "Intel Inside" logo on iPods (as well as Macs)? It could easily be worth it to Intel. Now imagine devices we don't know about; and Intel will help them with it, maybe for gratis -- and Apple gets even more volume discounts for using Intel processor.
Look at units from Intel's point of view. Apple between their products could easily be talking 15 million units a year. A few million Macs at current levels, with many of them having more than one chip. And many more millions of iPods, not to mention new devices. Plus Apple's cachet, their ability to design, and push the industry into areas like mainstreaming MultiProcessors, using SIMD (SSE) to it's potential, and so on.
This is a huge win for Intel, so Intel cares about Apple. Apple is instantly a player getting close to Dell's value to Intel; add in growth due to larger promotional budget, less barriers to entry, and so on. Apple could be Intel's number one customer in 5 years. But from IBM's view, it's a small segment of a small division. It's too much work, Apple's too temperamental and artistic, and actually expects IBM to care. But IBM doesn't care.
Now who would you rather partner with if you were Apple?
ЗЫ: Кстати, у меня тоже валяется старый КПК Compaq Aero 1550 с примерно такими же, как у тебя хар-ами, правда, со слотом CompactFlash Type I. И я точно также, как и ты, Кудза, им не пользуюсь
.
я тоже сначала хотел-все переискал-кукиш 
