http://people.cs.uchicago.edu/~neilk/macquarium.html

And even more useful than it was before!

I don't have time to list all of the things I'd like to, but you're leaving out a lot of specs on the Mac side: DVI support, non-integrated video RAM (vs shared for the Dell), higher maximum resolution supported. Also, in the case of the G5 tower, dual display support, gigabit ethernet, bluetooth built-in, expandable to 4 GB (vs 512 limit on the dell), the superdrive is actually 16x, 600 MHz bus (vs 400 MHz in the dell), gigabit ethernet, system-controlled ultraquiet fans, FireWire 800 (vs no Firewire at all on the Dell), etc.

All this is not to mention that the dell is made with low-bid components, and Apple ranks far better than them in customer support and offers much more in software than what's available with the Dell, including native OS support of things like Apache/Perl/PHP, native PDF support, X11, Native scripting with either AppleScript or Automator, Automatic networking with Bonjour (formerly Rendezvous), etc. All of this must be added on to achieve a comparable Dell system.

This site does pretty well at comparing Macs to Dell equivalents.

oh yeah: don't forget the $100 Dell charges for shipping. Sometimes they run promos, but usually you get stuck with it.

tried.

Well, there we go; the whole "heat" thing Apple has been bragging about turns out to be total BS.

Here is an Intel Mac:

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000740046045/

(Note, just one small fan on the chip)

And here is a G5 Mac:

http://www.apple.com/powermac/

(Note the massive coolers on the chips)

The board looks very standard to me...

Adding Bluetooth, Gigabit Ethernet and a powerful videocard would cost no more than $200. Apache, Perl and PHP are useless for the average PC user, and useless for the average Mac user too. Besides that, they are opensource and can be installed on any PC. Adding it would be no more than a 5 minute download.

Still don't see where the massive price differences come from.

Anyhow, now Apple has moved to the better chip we'll be in a better position to compare. The fact that they can sell the Intel Mac to developers for just $999 is very very telling, and I suspect that is the way we will be heading.

I actually don't think that price point is telling anything. They need to get the hacked up Intel Mac into the hands of developers, and $999 is a compelling enough price point to do it. It's a development-only box, though, and Apple will require the return of it at the end of 2006. So they're really only leasing them for $999. Not that I think it would have any value left in it after that. I think the price point is agressive so that developers will take them up on the offer.

I don't really expect Intel processors to make for lower priced Macs. With the enclosures that Apple typically makes, they'll likely continue to use custom logic board designs and such which contribute to the cost. And I keep hearing that Apple was already getting PowerPC processors for less than the cost of some of these newfangled Intel units that Apple is expected to use. Okay, maybe we're only seeing the initial run costs of the Intel processors and those prices quickly drop? I dunno. Either way, I don't think the move is about cost.

^

Can you cite the sources where you have heard Apple bragging about the heat thing?

Heat sinks have been huge since the G5 was introduced. Even the later G4s had massive heat sinks. Both generations of machines had substantial cooling systems and multiple fans. In the later G4s, this was an issue, as the fans generated lots of noise. It was solved in the G5s by creating multiple thermal zones, with a total of 5 fans throughout, all controlled and coordinated by the machine to maximize efficiency and reduce noise.

When the G4 Powerbook was introduced, Apple went to 70 watt power adapters, due to the machine needing to pull more power than previous models.

There was a time when the PowerPC was much more efficient than comparable Wintel models, but that hasn't been for a few years, and it hasn't been a marketing point in some time.

It's kind of unfair to cite marketing from many years and 1.5 major chip revs ago as conflicting with the company's planned course of direction two years from now.

Pentiums have been the laughing stock of every Mac owner for years, they were "slow", "power hungry", "warm" etc... Hence my having to laugh at the current situation.

FWIW, I understand that the mobo in the ADC dev machines is is made by no other than.... INTEL

An Intel chip, and an Intel board, it doesn't get any better than that.

The speed always depended on what the user was doing.

Power hungry- Pentiums did require a great deal more juice at one time and were a lot warmer at one time. That hasn't been the case for a while, which is why those are benefits that are no longer promoted and haven't been for years.

It's no surprise that the boards are made by Intel. First, they're development machines, Apple would need to partner with Intel's engineering teams on motherboard design, and it's only one more progression to see them manufactured by Intel. Second, The more manufacturers that are disclosed to the partnership prior to announcement the greater the chance that the news would have leaked sooner than it did. Having the board built by another party would have increased this risk.

To me this partnership is analogous to the one Apple forged with IBM for the G5 processor. Both companies were both bitter rivals but leveraged each other when it benefited them mutually.

We see similar competition/cooperation relationships in other partners of Apple, including Sony, Microsoft, HP, Adobe, even Dell, which once sold iPods prior to coming out with the DJ.

Companies do it all the time. Toyota licensed its hybrid technology to Ford a couple of years ago, and Ford brought a hybrid SUV to the US market before Toyota rolled theirs out.

It's an interesting change in direction, yes, but it's not totally unexpected either. It's been fairly common knowledge that x86 versions of OS X have continued to be developed since NextStep was acquired by Apple.

Why? They have designed and made their own boards for many years now, and now all of sudden they give up on development? R&D has always been the cornerstone of Apple...

As promised, here's a link to the WWDC keynote, where the switch to Intel was announced.

Design/development and manufacturing have been two totally different things for some time now, industry-wide.

And, yes, R&D has always been the cornerstone at Apple.

Well yes, but even Dell and HP use boards they designed themselves. For Apple to use a regular spec Intel board is sad to see.

So will Apple in 2006, when they begin ramping in Intel processors. The very beginning of the cutover is still not even expected to commence until next year. Yet they needed probably hundreds of Intel boxes for demo use on the floor for the announcement. What better low-profile, efficient way to get them there could there be than going with stock products?

Why? It's a preproduction system. What's more, the preproduction systems that were on the floor are not what the developers will be getting. Those won't be shipped for another two weeks.