The main product would be the PowerPC based Macs. The secondary platform would be MacX86 based. The PowerMac would not run MacX86 code and the MacX86 would not run PowerMac code, but with a switch in OSX you could compile for either platform. It would not be like the 68K Macs verses the PowerMacs, it would be a dual system support.

Apple's Benefits of the MacX86:

#1 Cheaper Hardware

#2 Less chance of a chip shortage like the PowerPC based Macs

#3 Able to dual-boot to Windows, Linux, etc.

#4 Able to run X86 NeXTStep software. At one time NeXTStep was written for Intel processors. Why abandon all that code?

#5 Apple can compete against Gateway. Dell, IBM, Compaq, and others for cheaper PC systems. The MacX86 can run the same software as the rest of them.

#6 Apple will most likely tweak the PC ROM to incude code converted from the PowerMac ROM. Maybe Quickdraw and other features will be used in the MacX86 ROM?

#7 The lower price will have Apple compete against cheapie Wal-Mart sold Linux boxes and other cheaper systems that run Linux, OpenBSD, etc.

#8 It will be sold to Unix shops that normally buy WINTEL hardware and run Unix on them as a workstation. OSX for MacX86 would give a low cost Unix Workstation that is easier to configure and install than your usual brand of Unix. All of the Unix features without a huge cost of the hardware.

#9 It would be a big boon for Pre-Installed Unix systems to have Apple sell them via the web store. So people can run Unix via OSX on X86 systems without spending a lot of money on PowerMac or more expensive systems.

#10 Apple could ultimately make a PCI expansion card to let generic PC clones run OSX, sort of like a dongle device. That way they can curb piracy and control what systems get to run OSX.

The PowerMac would not be dead, but instead this would be an alternative to a PowerMac and/or Unix/Linux/OpenBSD systems.

maybe Apple wants AMD to produce PowerPC chips for another source of supplies of them besides IBM and Motorola?

Maybe Apple wants a WINTEL machine so that users can dual-boot Windows and Darwin or Linux on it? Maybe they have no real plans, but are just considering it?

Kind of reminds me of Sun workstations, one using SPARC and the other using Intel chips.

But you are right, with the Apple modifications it will cost more than a WINTEL clone. But would it still cost less than a PowerMac? Lucky Goldstar, or LG Electronics, who made the G3 iMac, also makes WINTEL clones, it would be easy for Apple to outsource the MacX86 to LG in Korea to keep the prices low. Maybe $700USD or $800USD instead of $600USD?

Of course consider the X86 based Amiga systems:

[link|http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/amigaxpricing.html|[link|http://www.computing-extreme.com/amiga/amigaxpricing.html|http://www.computin...pricing.html]]

They are priced a bit higher than normal WINTEL Clones, they can run Linux, Windows, AmigaOS XL, etc. Amiga decided to make X86 based Amigas to extend the life of the Amiga and to make cheaper Amiga systems. Of course the software also works on almost any modern X86 PC Clone system, not just Amiga brand ones. Does this mean that the G3/G4 AmigaOne is kaput? Not really, it is just a different standard and different system.

Apple makes a special brand of Mac, one with dual processors. One PowerPC and the other X86. The system can use the X86 chip as a co-processor, or to run WINTEL code. During bootup a special key can be hit to go into "PC Mode" and boot PC operating systems natively. Under OSX the X86 chip can be used while the PowerPC chip is in "Supervisor" mode to assign tasks to the X86 chip to take the workload off the main CPU. Sort of like what the Amiga used to do. Using WINE, OSX can use the X86 chip to run DOS and Windows programs side-by-side with Mac programs. Apple even can make a virtual machine that uses the X86 chip to run X86 operating systems inside a Window of OSX. Older Macs could get a PCI card with an AMD chip on it to act as a co-processor. Sort of like those old Amiga Bridgecards, or those Orange Micro PC cards for the older Macs. Sure it would raise the price of some Macs, but it would help Apple get a better foothold into the X86 market, which is way bigger than the PowerMac market.

is it gets Apple into IT Shops that they normally wouldn't get into, because the new Macs can run Windows software and are virtually a PC. Many IT shops prohibit buying of Macintoshes, but if the new Mac is more like a PC, it might get accepted over the PowerMac.

It would also save Mac Users from having to buy RealPC or VirtualPC if the Mac ran Windows code natively. Even with OSX, it can get libraries added to run Linux X86 ELF binaries.

About as silly as Atari and Commodore making PC Clones. Nobody will want to buy them because of the name.

[link|http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4559|http://www.theinqui...article=4559]

MACWORLD SHOWED US that Jobs is running the old migration-to-the- PC-idea up the familiar flagpole. While the eventual target for such a strategic move is the erosion of Microsoft's desktop OS market share, the nearer-term targets for Jobs' words are manufacturers and tier-one OEMs such as Dell, and HP.
Industry watchers will remember the various dual-boot wars between IBM's OS/2, and flavors of Windows - 3.1, NT and Win95. Microsoft concluded those wars victoriously, fighting tooth and nail to bury OS/2 and, aided by IBM's ham-handed support, succeeded smartly.

An X86 Mac Would Be Desirable For Many
MS scenarios analysing potential conflicts between an x86 MAC, and Windows platforms raise far different and more dangerous threats to the virtual Microsoft monopoly on desktops, than IBM ever did with OS/2. Apple, unlike IBM, knows a thing or two about ergonomics, and customer satisfaction, and poses a genuine threat that Microsoft cannot brush aside easily.

Mac OSX is also technically more desirable than Windows XP since it has welded the highly desirable Mac interface onto an extremely stable and mature unix back end. The unix kernel inside the Mac OS on a standard PC poses a threat not only from the ergonomic perspective, but also threatens the entire marketing thrust of the Microsoft operating system strategic directions, that are leading users into a spiral of more intrusive and proprietary man-machine-business interfaces.

Could it give Apple a foothold into the PC/WINTEL market? Could they go head to head against Microsoft?

Mac X86 Adoption Has Two Major Barriers
Before Apple can stand toe-to-toe with Microsoft on the corporate desktop, a deployment strategy needs to be established. Apple needs to win OEM support to deliver Mac OSX on standard PC hardware from Dell, HP, IBM, Toshiba, and others. But before Apple can even address deployment two lynchpin issues need resolving. Can AMD deliver hammers in volume? and... Will Dell sell AMD Hammers? If the answer to both these questions is yes, then you can bet that Mac will make a stab at the market.

The key is in getting the OEMs to pre-install OSX X86 instead of Windows XP.

The area where Apple needs significant work is in the integration/migration strategies for organizations using Exchange. Microsoft has the exchange noose around a lot of corporate necks, and it remains to be seen whether Apple chooses to fight or fit-in with Microsoft groupware strategies.

Apple still needs to develop some decent server apps, something to combat Microsoft's Backoffice. Otherwise it won't be taken seriously by most IS Departments, most of whom run NT or W2K Server on X86 Servers. With OSX X86, Apple could try and get those IS Departments to switch to their brand of software without paying extra for new hardware costs.