So...I guess after these Cuts, Motorola will have about 5 people working for them: 1 CEO, 2 Guys working on Cell Phones, 1 Guy working on mobile device chips, and another guy working on Desktop chips. Way to go Moto!

This kind of crap is really getting out of hand.

I love my iBook...I really do, but it just looks bad when PDA's are about to surpass Apple's chips in Mhz..(ie 400Mhz xscale proc for the pocket pc)

Another point in all this is how lame Moto has been with cranking out the chips.

I agree that Apple needs to devise some other strategies here, and I'm sure they are. We've all heard about OS X on Intel hardware, and you have to believe that they've created a version of such to push out the door if Moto does go tits up.

Thing is, if Moto goes down in flames, they'll try and sell off assets, including the G4, etc, so I would also ponder the possibility that even if they flop over, someone else like IBM will step in.

I just want them to do it now, so we can get some faster chips! Or call the friendly folks at AMD. Whatever it takes.

Or maybe Apple should move backward in chip architectures- the 604e is probably at a pretty high megahertz rating now- all they have to do is reintroduce the Kansas motherboard, set the multiplier to 30x or so, and we'd be rockin' 1.5 gigahertz PowerPCs!

An Apple engineer compiled the first x86 version of Darwin over two years ago. And it was proven that the Darwin kernel ran "much" faster on the x86 architecture of a similar configuration. But Darwin offers only a BSD-ish OS that talks to Macintosh file systems. The rich GUI goodness of OS X is in the sweet, sweet upper layers of the architecture....and that's what Apple is keeping proprietary. Aqua's on top for that signature Mac GUI; just below lie the developer frameworks. Java 2 or "Classic" compatibility layers are for running older apps, the Carbon and Cocoa frameworks are for the real OS X action. Carbon lets you develop apps for current Macs (OS 8.1 and up) using traditional techniques, but Cocoa is the jewel in the crown.

The problem is not Apple or OS X. As a former Windows user, I will tell you the problem. OS X is a wonderful OS....that can't be over stressed. And Apple is squeezing every little drop of performance out of it that they can. Their coders are very talented to say the least. But think about this. OS X is a very graphically intensive OS with great effects. You can tighten the code only so much. Apple needs pure raw power and bandwidth to do this OS justice. That's it! WindowsXP is also a good OS and MUCH more responsive than OS X. But I promise you that Microsoft doesn't deserve all the credit. XP gets to run on very fast hardware with vast bandwidth. So it's no wonder XP is so fast and responsive....given the right hardware. I have NO doubt in my mind that if I had a x86 version of OS X to load on my AthlonXP 2000+, 1G of PC2100 DDR, and GeForce4 Ti4600 it would scream!

So it's not Apple's fault and it's definitely not OS X's fault. There comes a time that pure raw power and bandwidth makes all the difference in the world. I love PC hardware, but I hate M$. And of course I love my iBook....I think I've already commented on that before