steven n fettig's Jitterin' Thoughts

I was having one of my sleepless episodes last night and working on the new 17" aircraft carrier (17" PowerBook) and thinking about the question of why or why not Apple should move to the ix86 processor line. I've heard arguments as to why the x86 processor is better than the PowerPC line (DJ Bernstein has some articles on this subject: PowerPC speed, x86 speed & Advice for computer buyers) and I have read the infamous article from John Dvorak at PC Magazine about Apple needing to move to the 64-bit x86 processor. I still don't know up from down, however. The PowerPC chips are indeed slower than the newest Intel and AMD chips, but I don't really care because I'm not running Windows. In the case that I do use the x86 processor, I run FreeBSD or RedHat Linux - and there I see a definite improvement over the same-machine performance running Windows. That, however, is not due to the CPU, but due to the OS. The complaint I have with the PowerPC is simply one of price. Apple is out of their minds if they think they can continue to lag behind Intel - megahertz myth or no myth (in my opinion, myth, but that's another story). So, what should Apple do and will IBM or Motorola ever be able to catch up? Is the market for their chips even worth the catch-up? Forget the infantile religious arguments as to why one way is better than the other, I want to know if we are ever going to see sound statistics to back up Apple's consistent backing of PPC (other than to create a proprietary hardware line). Will this work in the long run? I really don't know. These are only the late night rantings of a sleepless Mac & FreeBSD geek...