I probably shouldn't say this but... That was funny hehe!

Dang their saddles must be rather loose. You're not getting a rise.

I know. Some people are just uncooperative. ;-)

What he said.

Yeah, it seems so unfair.

Where did they get all that money anyway?

/rise

Hard not to agree with Steve about Bill's commitment to quality, after my latest surprise shutdown of Microsoft Word for mac on my office computer. But shifting from OS 9 to OS 10 and then from Motorola to Intel chips was a big middle finger to a lot of mac users who spent thousands of dollars to upgrade to OS 10.x applications only to find out that any new computer purchases from now on will run those applications only slightly faster than an 8086 PC using the Rosetta translation program.

Depreciation will eventually take care of the problem on the books, and we will go out and buy the new Intel-based OS 10 applications a few years from now. But it did make more sense last year to get a one of the Motorola G4 widescreen laptops at closeout that could use the current software at its proper speed than to wait 'till this year, when the new laptop was actually budgeted, and end up with a technically better Intel mac, but one that would either run the software slower or require additional $$$ be shelled out to buy the new apps that could take advantage of the new-look innards of Jobs' computers.

Nat, I was beginning to worry about you. Anyway, I really can't answer your question, although I suspect P.T. Barnum could have.

John, I guess I have a different perspective on the upgrade issue, in that it seemed obvious to me that any emulation (or translation) software would almost by definition include a significant slowdown for those who elected to take an early plunge. I've stuck with my 8 year old 500mhz G4 desktop and 1ghz G4 laptop, and OS 10.3.9, simply because it didn't make economic sense to spring for an "upgrade" that would yield slower performance -- and recognizing that the situation would inevitably, if ever-so-gradually, change. But, really, the bottom line for Apple was that the Intel path was necessary for the survival of the product line. In a way, it's a testimony to the overall quality of Apple's products that so many people have stuck with them (or even switched over) despite these "challenges."

I don't disagree with that, Eric. It's just that there had been rumors for years that Apple would abandon Motorola and go with an Intel (or AMD)-based system, because of Moto's problems producing processors with the speeds the newer computers required. It would have been better if Jobs had bitten the bullet and made the switch to Intel at the same time OS 10 arrived, so that software buyers could have just jumped to Intel-based OS 10.x software for their new macs and wouldn't be facing the double-switch they do in a relatively short period of time.

I dunno, John. It's hard to imagine the chaos that would have accompanied a simultaneous switch of both OS and processor. ;-)