Intel Mac comes very poor second to PPC

[Kathyone]

PPC design is inherently superior to INTEL.
At the same clock speed it will annhilate the intel chip.
IBM developed it. Motorola has done a lot with low power design. Go to freescale.com. They announced a new partnership between Motorola aka freescale and ibm. Collaberation on design, etc. Go to power.org to check out the details. The xbox 360 is a 970 or g5 core based design. With 3 cores.
Enuff said.

[Kathyone]

Mac osx is just freebsd unix with a few add ons and a pretty face.

It doesn't scale back for anything. They just used carbon library to run old apps which is integrated into bsd free unix. Even the new apps depend on carbon to some degree.
I haven't looked at Tiger internals. I am a developer for mac os x. I used to develop for amiga os.

I run osx 10.3.9 and will upgrade soon. Don't want no intel processor, though.  Apple gave up on the rhapsody project.
They couldn't get the os right. They used next step code to build os x. Remember NEXT os?

Jobs is a genius, but osx is too monolithic just like linux.
It doesn't scale well. OS4 and other Microkernal based preemptive multitasking cores like qnx are superior.
It is posix or unix compliant and similar, but much much smaller and faster.

[Kathyone]

ppc 64 is better than intel. Intel is using a 60 nm board die size because they can afford it. The smallest ppc die is 90nm. But the design of the ppc is superior. Look at freescale roadmap. The e600 goes up to 1.5 ghz. The e700 will go to 3ghz with 64 bit instuction set available but with low power. The athlon runs hot. The core duo is the only energy efficent chip they have. The freescale chip is very thermally sound.
With the ibm freescale alliance, They will get the chip and make it economically advantageous to use.

The PPC will triumph.