For nearly as long as I can remember, people have been predicting that Apple would switch to Intel processors. John Dvorak's prediction that Apple would switch within the next 12 to 18 months is unusual only in that he sees Apple going to Itanium rather than x86 chips.I've never read anything Dvorak has written (which admittedly is not much) that I thought was on the mark, well thought out, and not intended to incite me somehow. I swear he must only be digging for click-thrus, whereas the osOpinion people attempt to provide reasoned analytics in their articles.
But just like all the forecasters that came before him, Dvorak has it wrong. It would be a boldly stupid move for Apple to try to switch to Itanium, for a number of reasons.
In the osOpinion article, they make this extremely important remark...
Assuming that the Mac faithful are willing to undergo another migration -- and there are plenty of Mac fans who would probably stick with Apple through anything -- what about the third-party software vendors? Vendors are going to be less tolerant of yet another radical shift so soon after the switch to OS X.And you can point to Quark for a good example. Even now, years after I started using OSX, Quark has yet to release an OSX native XPress. Never mind the service companies who have investments in PowerPC based hardware. Getting them to migrate their software is a challenge, hardware migration is another one, and we don't need any more Mac challenges right now. The slow processor problem can be mitigated by IBM, but has to be done RIGHT NOW and CHEAPLY. An Itanium switch addresses neither of those needs.
But who cares about any of that when you can get involved with another Mac/PC holy war.