Myott Son Co Rosemary

Apple goes Intel!!

http://www.apple.com/it/pr/comunicati/2005/06/06-Intel_2006.html
The news is terrible, unheard. I am surprised, shocked, angry black. And not because Apple chip switch to the enemy, are not so childish and so not even deployed. Yes, I know, it's like when they play the national team and all become CT, we are always with all Apple CEO. But this time it's really great for many reasons and in this case
-I can understand the exasperation of Apple for the delivery and the limited amount available in the PowerPC, but we had the fastest chip, the chip more efficient, the chip with lower consumption and lower heat. Even Microsoft had shifted from Intel to PPC for its platform that requires more power and efficiency (paradoxically Platform games: Xbox 360, see http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14050 ).
-Migration: We have dealt with more migration of a nomadic people of antiquity: the first from 680x0 to PPC, then from a MacOS MacOsX, always passing through emulation and remix. I never want to migrate, I do not want to have half of the software running in emulation. I'll be ready for the next platform migration between ten years, this fall.
-Print: twenty years that are ill-informed journalists say that the move to Intel is an obligation for Apple. The problem is that they give their reason in itself: the problem is that we now speak of "inadequacy of line of processors, a "crisis of Apple" and "defeat at the Battle of the personal computer," and "yield to a better architecture and more compliant."
-The general policy and relations with users. Al Beyond the above-mentioned problem to subject us to a new migration, new emulation and new trouble, the benefits may come from changing after identifying chip for almost ten years ITS PROFESSIONAL LINE WITH THE PROCESSOR IN IT INSTALLED? What effect will the average user this about-face last decade of marketing and promotion Apple? You feel tricked? ("What? They told me that the PPC chip was more powerful? Then lying, or lying now?") Not to mention the fact that moving to a more popular product, available, and manufactured in large volumes, so the more convenient and economical, can be a choice from Apple, but will never be a Macintosh user choice.
-supply. IBM and Motorola could perhaps give their beautiful problemucci, what will happen when Intel will have to satisfy orders from thousands of other producers, and Apple will not be one on the list? I'm really curious to know ...

In summary, we lose a processor supercomputer (in terms of performance, classification as a military secret, and compatibility, since it was founded PPC compatible with IBM mainframe). We lose stability and efficiency of our systems and applications, trouble with new emulation for which we must pass. We lose ten years of advertising in favor of a "ok, we were wrong", and with them we lose a little 'identity ... because our computers have the name of the processor that motivates them. We lose threads: Any PC-weenie maleinformato can say that Apple has lost the war and has admitted ... and I believe that shareholders will not feel too well ... Frankly, in the face of these losses, I do not see big gains on the horizon, at least for users. But perhaps the company ex-computer maker that should re-name "iPod Company sees it differently. But a