Not at all - I just have more sense than I have money - oh and I come from a country where Apple didn't buy themselves a market (loss leaders into education anyone?)

IBM was focused making chips for their servers and the embedded markets. So Apple had a choice of very powerful server chips that were too hot for laptops (G5) or underpowered low energy chips for the embedded market that lacked the computing power for laptops. Apple was making amazing servers that used much less energy than the alternatives. Unfortunately, the power of Apple’s laptops stagnated because IBM would not bother to make the G5 more efficient to allow use in laptops.

Intel had lost their way with the Pentiums, but with the superior engineering and design principles of the Core chips, was able to recruit Apple away from IBM. Apple would get a chip supplier who’s core market is computer makers like Apple.

The bonus is that Apple’s kit would be Windows-compatible and made it easier for previous Windows users to consider Apple gear. The Intel chips made an Apple purchase easier, but in practice most switchers stop switching back into Windows soon after experiencing MacOS X.

Some people will want one laptop; some will want the other. That’s what competition is all about. That means we all get better laptops for less as the companies compete for our business.

But, please don’t insult our intelligence. We are all capable of checking actual web sites. Most people are too busy to check or could care less. That’s why there is a journalistic responsibility to tell the truth and not mislead the readership.

For the real facts check their websites. This blog post is just troll bait looking for hits. Nothing to see here. Please move along.