IBM hasn't been delivering on the potential of the PowerPC -- which is a far superior architecture to X86. (EM64T is a semblance of a 64-bit extension built on top of what's basically still an 8 bit chip architecture; PowerPC was designed as a true 64-bit machine from the very beginning. PowerPC was also designed for efficient and scalable multiprocessing, another area in which X86 is particularly poor.) With even a small fraction of the level of investment Intel has dumped into X86, the PowerPC would be running 10 times faster and 10 times cooler -- but IBM has no interest. Intel has such resources that they've managed to make a chip design that was obsolete decades ago continue to improve in performance. An astonishing accomplishment, to be sure; and the chip layout, microcode, and fab design engineers should be proud of the technical accomplishments. But that doesn't change the fact that it's an absurd waste of energy. If it wasn't totally fettered by the outdated requirements of the X86 "facade", the core of a Pentium would scream. The true technological wizardry is that these amazing chips can so accurately and completely pretend to be so much less than they really are. (It's a software emulator on a chip, really.) Apple has been building and testing Mac OS X and the bundled apps on X86 chips since the very beginning; only the announcement and public demonstration is new. They've been ready in case Motorola and IBM couldn't deliver -- as they haven't. This is a pragmatic business decision. Nothing to do with PowerPC vs X86, really; but rather with the commitment of IBM vs Intel. While the first Intel Macs are expected to be Pentium M chips, in laptops and/or mini enclosures, desktop and server systems will follow, probably with the next generation of EM64T chips.