Possibly, another explanation is that people who waited for Vista to stabilize are growing impatient and are now ready to make the switch away from Windows.

uhm, I read the same article. 'Survey says people buy MacBooks because consumers are 'satisfied' with Apple Inc. computers'.

Intel helps the buying decision re: choice of OS and associated corporate network connections and software, but when you want an Apple Inc. computer, you have no other choice than an Intel processor. Duh.

Survey says Apple Inc. computers, not other 'Halo Effect' products 'satisfy' - that currently other manufacturers i.e. Dell don't seem to 'satisfy' or drive buying decisions as much, regardless of the SAME Intel factor. Hello?

Most users of Macintosh personal computers I know are still satisfied with their old (pre-Intel) G4 and G5 processors.

Regarding the article's survey report on next purchase, all new Apple computers sold are at least Intel Core 2 Duo - they now make nothing less.

A lack of consumer choice in, or care of, processor manufacturer has little to do with one currently very successful, integrated, open source personal computing product design.

A company that is not just a computer maker anymore seems to 'satisfy'. For now. End of story.

"At different times, we were told that first one PowerPC and then the other was the better chip."

What's the problem with that? In 1999 the G4 was the most advanced PowerPC processor available to Apple, four years later IBM's PPC970 was more powerful. It happens all the time. The Pentium 4 was the most advanced x86 desktop CPU until AMD's Opteron/Athlon-64 was released in 2003, and at the moment Intel's Core is widely regarded as the best x86 CPU. OHMIGOD! Teh impression left is definitely one of instability!!111one :-)

I won't buy Apple computers anymore ...
Jobs, happy milking the Mac ;-)

I didn't buy my MacPro because it has dual core Intel Xeons... I was fed up with all the problems that I've experienced over the years with the various versions of Windows. Vista was the last straw! But you are spot on about the multiple versions of Apple's CPU. You can run almost any version of Windows on just about any Pentium 2 or better.. Not so with the MAC. Much of the software available for it is CPU and OS-X version sensitive. I know from personal experience. I have a great deal of trepidation about the new version of OS-X (10.5) that is coming out in October. Who knows what is going to be rendered inoperable by this release.

I bought a Mac partially because of the processor (same as current Wintel PC's), partially because of the OS (BSD Unix variant), and love it. I especially love programs like "Parallels", which allow me to install any OTHER OS on my mac including XP.

-S

#1 reason people buy Macs is OS X! It just works intuitively.
#2 reason people buy Macs is lack of viruses/other malware.
#3 reason people buy Macs is tight integration of hardware and software. There are few surprises (OK, some, but few).
#4 reason people buy Macs is Apple Customer Service. With few notable exceptions, it is the best END USER experience in the business. No, they don't court enterprise IT customers, but real people can call them up and get real answers that work, if only an intelligent question to pose to corporate IT! Ever been to a Genius Bar at the Apple Store? They've helped me tremendously.

Intel chips' draw is limited to higher speed processing and the ability to run MS Windows and other OSes on the Mac hardware. That's not insignificant, but very important for sometime gamers and corporate users. You would like to think your investment will allow you to connect with the dark side when needed to do business or satisfy your advanced gaming urge! And it does, with Boot Camp, Parallels, and several other solutions.

#1 reason people buy Macs is OS X! It just works intuitively.
#2 reason people buy Macs is lack of viruses/other malware.
#3 reason people buy Macs is tight integration of hardware and software. There are few surprises (OK, some, but few).
#4 reason people buy Macs is Apple Customer Service. With few notable exceptions, it is the best END USER experience in the business. No, they don't court enterprise IT customers, but real people can call them up and get real answers that work, if only an intelligent question to pose to corporate IT! Ever been to a Genius Bar at the Apple Store? They've helped me tremendously.

Intel chips' draw is limited to higher speed processing and the ability to run MS Windows and other OSes on the Mac hardware. That's not insignificant, but very important for sometime gamers and corporate users. You would like to think your investment will allow you to connect with the dark side when needed to do business or satisfy your advanced gaming urge! And it does, with Boot Camp, Parallels, and several other solutions.

I have recently begun the switch to Mac and Intel hardware was a major influence for me.

I am sick to death of Windows and of constant patching which seems to steal more and more of my CPU power by the day. Vista's insane horsepower requirements were the last straw.

However, since I'm still not certain that I can run everything from the Windows world that is essential to my business on the Mac, and am not convinced that I could live in a dual boot world, the Intel hardware gives me a fall-back to Windows if I absolutely have to. Previous versions of Mac ruled out that option and were the primary reason I did not attempt a switch previously.

Now that I have seen Windows Vista, I am ready to make the switch to Mac.

I bought Apples from the II days, If all I can buy is an Intel Mac, I may never buy another Mac. With the new P6 IBM and AMD offerings, why stick with a looser processor that looks great on paper, but doesn't have the real world through put due to out of date design, and designed in limitations? Remember Mr Jobs quote before the move to Intel, cheaper chips was the sole criteria, inferior didn't matter, Mac lovers wouldn't care. My Powerbook is doing quite well, and much faster and lighter than my work Dell. Intel Macs are fast only because the processor is even faster. Just think what it could do with an IBM P6, which is even faster still?

Jon Paris, you are very wise to base your choice of brand (much less processor) on SOFTWARE. If you're invested in Windows software and don't plan to re-up that investment, I think you would still be pleasantly rewarded by running a dual-boot mac, if not discovering native OS X software that also does what you need. In this regard, I bet you would be astonished.

If you don't believe me, make a list of the work you need to do with software, then go ask a genius at the apple store. Ask them whether or not each package you own (including, for example, XP) will already work or not, and what OS X programs compare to yours. Press them on subjects like migration and compatibility. Chances are, many of your listed items are included with the purchase of a Mac or available for little or nothing extra, i.e. open source packages.

Much as I resent the Wintel duopoly, I think one has to respect Apple's problems with chip suppliers. In the very early '90s, Apple teamed with IBM and Motorola on the PowerPC architecture. Both Motorola and IBM had fabrication facilities. Apple did not. Apple was at the mercy of its partners for its supply of CPUs, and when one compares Apple's consumption of CPUs to Moto's and IBM's internal consumption, it doesn't take long to figure out who is going to get first dibs on supply. I can't blame Apple for finally giving the finger to IBM and Moto, though I personally /*much*/ prefer the PowerPC RISC architecture to the kludge that is Intel's current architecture. Personally, appreciating Apple's strategic decision to stop having to take the table scraps from IBM and Motorola, and since they have no fabrication facilities of their own, I would have preferred seeing them partner with AMD rather than Intel, but I am confident that Intel made them a /*much*/ better deal than AMD could/would have. Also, I could see them being paranoid that they would find themselves in the same position with AMD that they did with IBM and Motorola. But being the maverick he is, I'm really surprised that Jobs climbed into bed with Intel. I thought he was more astute than that.

Having said /*all*/ that, it'll be interesting to see what happens when the honeymoon with Intel is over and they begin to squeeze Apple the same way they have everyone else . . .

FWIW,

George Capehart

What makes me glad I've got a Mac is that despite the outdated (year 2000!)Motorola processor, it works better than my 2006 Windows XP system on an admittedly superior chip. After 7 years of use and abuse, my Powerbook is still useful (though not too fast at 500mhz)with the latest OS that Apple makes.

The Intel move is icing on the cake as far as buying my next laptop.