[link|http://www.theinquirer.net/30010215.htm|Here]. It raises some interesting questions, but the author of the letter doesn't seem to recognize some things and puts the best possible spin on an AMD+Apple tieup. Some problems I see:

1. Motorola seems to have finally gotten their act together with their processor speeds. 1 GHz parts are out (immenently) and faster ones are coming. Why would Apple switch architectures now when Moto seems to finally be delivering?

2. ISV's aren't jumping at the chance to rewrite their apps for new architectures. Getting Adobe and others on board quickly won't be trivial.

3. What about MS? Many (rightly or wrongly) think that without MS Office a platform is dead.

Now maybe a tieup like this would fit into other speculation (on TheRegister or TheInquirer) about Apple going after SGI's lower-end workstations with the new PowerMacs. Maybe Apple could introduce servers or workstations based on Hammer and OS-X and gently transition to another architecture that way, while continuing to battle SGI (if they really want that market).

It's interesting, and something like this may come to pass (Apple's changed processors a couple of times before, so they know how to do it). But I don't expect it to happen this year.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Scott.

[link|http://www.theinquirer.net/01020211.htm|Apple could easily migrate to X86].

Much of the code is portable, and Apple has experience running on different CPUs. But it doesn't make sense to run MacOS on a new architecture unless the existing CPU architecture has run out of steam. This is because some of the MacOS would have to be emulated until all the code was ported. Without a substantial speed delta in going to a new CPU, there won't be any performance benefit.

So don't expect MacOS-X/86 any time soon.

Cheers,
Scott.