Yes, you're unnecessarily concerned. The fact that Apple changed to
Intel processors only means that it's *possible* to run Windows in an
efficient manner, not that you should or that you have to for any reason.
Apple changed to Intel processors since the RISC (Reduced Instruction
Set Computer) architecture of the IBM/Motorola PowerPC processors was
getting a little long in the tooth. At the time that Apple originally
chose the PowerPC, RISC machines showed a decided performance advantage
over CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computers) machines such as used by
Intel. But Intel processors are now faster than PowerPC processors and
probably much cheaper as well due to the volumes in the PC market.
Apple learned a long time ago that they needed to adapt PC parts
wherever possible to take advantage of the volume cost structure. Apple
has been using PC peripherals for many years now. With the change to an
Intel processor there is now very little hardware difference between a
PC and a Mac. It's all in the software.
Chuck Norcutt
keith_w wrote:
> Tom Scales wrote:
>
>>That was my point. There is no Intel compiled version for the Mac yet and
>>they've said CS2 never will be.
>
>
> Which brings up a thought or two...
> I have no need for a Windows OS on my Mac, and will very likely never do
> so, so why would I even want an Intel Mac?
> My understanding of Mac's plans for the future mean they are never going
> to offer a NON-Intel Mac again. They'll all have the Intel chip in them.
>
> I suppose it doesn't matter ~ maybe ~ as if I do get an Intel Mac
> sometime in the future, that doesn't mean I MUST install a Windows OS on
> it, does it.
> So, maybe I'm concerned unnecessarily.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|