steven n fettig's Jitterin' Thoughts

A guy from IBM stopped by my office yesterday to fix a ridiculous problem with a DS300 (SCSI storage array we got for disk-to-disk backups) - someone set the controller to an IP that we couldn't find and I wasn't allowed to purchase the cable that would have enabled me to save IBM around $300 in warranty support costs. At the time (and as usual), I had everything from my PowerMac G5, PowerBook to a few IBM ThinkPads (and numerous other brands). The biggest difference was not so much the types of systems, but the fact that one group ran OS X and the others Windows. The tech. asked me what I thought of Apple's switch to Intel. Without blinking, I said I loved it. He had a puzzled look on his face and asked, "why?"
I figured at some point in time, I would get the question why I would think moving to Intel would be a good idea. To be honest, at first I was annoyed when the switch to Intel was confirmed. Not because of chip-religion or anything of the sort; I was irritated because I knew the transition would mean that software packages I now relied would have to be recompiled or completely reprogrammed to work on whatever new system I bought. Plus, there was the automatic obsolescence my G5's would end up going through (the most expensive systems in my collection). After the G5's weren't worth the effort of keeping up with OS and software changes, what the hell was I going to do with them? With Intel or AMD based machines, I could easily convert them to OpenBSD for use as a server or Linux (Fedora Core) for use as a MythTV box. My biggest issue was that OpenBSD doesn't have complete support for the G5. This may be for a host of understandable reasons, but it is an irritant if I look at the path I expect my high-end machines to take as I upgrade to something newer. This is exactly why I like the switch. Besides the fact that the question of performance on Intel has yet to be answered (which I think will be as good as the G5 over time - how can it not be?), I no longer have to wonder whether my machine can be put to good use after I retire it from use as my machine at the office or at home. On top of this, I expect to finally see improvements in the PowerBook, er MacBook, line. (Yes, I dislike the name, too, but as long as it remains as sexy as the old line and/or gets better, I could care less what they want to call it.) This was the biggest question in my mind: it was obvious that the G5 wasn't going to be crammed in a PowerBook (various reasons come to mind), so what were they going to do to finally come up with the next line of the PowerBook. I'm not referring to minor improvements. I'm talking of actual improvements in performance and functionality. When I compare the speed of my 1.67Ghz PowerBook to my G5, I laugh. I am sick of laughing at my PowerBook.
So, is the MacBook going to be faster than the current PowerBooks? I have my doubts, performance tests notwithstanding. The problem, my dear Watson, is software. I expect the performance of the MacBook to improve over time and not get worse. Improvements should come only because software will be made to work natively with the x86 architecture and not jump through Rosetta hoops. When I do finally decide to retire my first MacBook, lo and behold, I can actually convert it to something else and give it life as a workhorse instead of a plaything collecting dust. My pleasure of the switch comes from the new longevity my machines will see and nothing else. Otherwise, I was completely happy with the progress and performance improvements of their desktop line. You see, I'm not a programmer, so I wouldn't know where to begin when discussing the good or bad of the PowerPC chip architecture. I'm a user. And this user sees more use out of my machines as they get old and not less. That's worth something to me and hence, I like the switch.