Very interesting. CNet passes on that AMD outshipped Intel this past month for U.S. retail computers. This excludes direct sales (e.g. all of Dell), laptops, and business purchases, so it’s not indicative of a larger shift in the CPU market, but as News.com says, “Nonetheless, it’s a notable achievement.”

It’s pretty clear that my dream of cheap Dells running OS X isn’t going to happen:

After Jobs’ presentation, Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller addressed the issue of running Windows on Macs, saying there are no plans to sell or support Windows on an Intel-based Mac. “That doesn’t preclude someone from running it on a Mac. They probably will,” he said. “We won’t do anything to preclude that.”

However, Schiller said the company does not plan to let people run Mac OS X on other computer makers’ hardware. “We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac,” he said.

So, damn you Apple. Damn you all to heck.

I’m on a mac small business list, one that was started to share tips and information on running a Macintosh small business (think shareware developer, etc.). The consternation being expressed there is downright amazing to me. In part, I understand where most of them are coming from. They’re small shops, usually one or two developers only, and some have spent a lot of time optimizing code using Altivec or some other PPC specific code. Others are really concerned about the perception of the boxes and the lack of a clear differentiator on a technical level than a PC. Others point to the confusion that this move will create in the marketplace until all software is shipping as universal binaries. Finally, there’s the time and cost involved in supporting two very similar but slightly different platforms. This means having access to both platforms as necessary in case of driver conflicts or other issues.

There’s also a lot of hand wringing over the difference in performance. Aside from the power consumption issues, the G5 is technically a superior chip than the Pentium 4. I can’t argue with that much, either. My G5 rocks compared to anything in the office here up to and including the monster machines in the server room. So, after all of this marketing telling us how great the G5 is, Mac users are essentially being told, well, we were wrong.

I don’t actually think this is the real message being sent, but Jobs tried so hard to put a positive spin on the Intel move that this is how it came out. Bottom line is that Apple is going to be building more machines like the Mac Mini that require lower power consumption and heat generation. When you look at what the G5 gives you, it’s a boat load of processing horsepower with a boatload of heat, too. Heck, back when I was at the G5 unveiling at WWDC, I noticed the amount of heat pouring out the fans in the back. I don’t think this is a model that Apple is going to be focusing on for growth going forward. Mark my words: we’ll have a Mac Mini style box intended for your entertainment center or TV. Or some other small factor box that I haven’t thought of a use for yet. The power consumption question is going to be much bigger on those boxes, so this move allows them to grow in ways that aren’t in their traditional markets.

It also gives them a boost in the laptop space, though I think the lack of a technical differentiator is more significant here.

I still wish they would open it up and go for it heads up with Microsoft on the PC platform. Schiller makes it clear they’re not trying to be a software company but I swear, if anyone could do it, it’s Apple. OS X is just that much better than Windows.

Take a look: About This Mac on Intel

I am trying to wrap up and get to bed, but daaamn, we have the Wall Street Journal confirming the Apple/Intel announcement for Monday according to Om Malik. I need to spend some time really wrapping my head around this one, but it really looks like it might actually happen. This is a good thing all around, as long as it can be executed well. I’ll trust Jobs on that front. As a software developer, I’m excited. As a fan of Apple and OS X, I’m even more excited. As a long time critic of Windows (I haven’t bought or run it on my home machines in, gosh, nearly 5 or 6 years), I’m excited to see the possibility of an OS my mom can use that can work on machines that are extraordinarily inexpensive that doesn’t suck. I’ve always believed that Apple machines represented a good value for the features. Problem is that my mom doesn’t need Gigabit ethernet built in with Firewire 800. Heck, even I don’t on all but one box. So, bring on the Intel boxes and let’s get a mobile laptop running on faster chips than the aging G4. Granted, there won’t be the cachet of the dual G5 sitting on my desk at work (nor will the Intel desktops perform as well), but daaamn, it’s about freaking time.

I hope that Jobs doesn’t do something dumb like require a custom chipset. This was the stranglehold that kept their last attempt at clones from taking off.

PS. Think about this: the day that an Intel-ready OS X operating system appears, what do you think first day sales will be? Are there enough geeky Windows users to, in effect, double the number of OS X users in the U.S.? Worldwide? Anyone want to guess (or do the research that I can’t do now)?

(thanks Jason Calacanis for the pointer)

Update: Jason Kottke points out that the chips might not be x86 compatible chips. I’m about 50/50 on this one… I believe that Apple wouldn’t risk their hardware business… but maybe, just maybe, they realize what’s sitting tantalizingly close for the first time in our computer revolution: real convergence with real hardware and real tools. The Mac Mini is a start in this direction and I’m thinking that we’re going to see more consumer products from Apple than we have in the past. Or, Jobs is smarter than me and has another good reason to go x86. Besides, part of this for me is just wishful thinking… I want commodity OS X boxes. Yesterday.

The best of all worlds coming soon?

CNet reports that Apple is going to announce at least a partial switch to Intel processors on Monday.

I’m torn on this particular issue. I actually like the design of the PowerPC processor and I think that a viable alternative to Intel is a good thing for all of us. Ditching the x86 line is a better thing for all of us. 64-bit CPUs are better too. Thing is that Intel has gotten something like 64-bit out now, and the cheaper stuff is coming. They’re bigger, their chips run more places and I’d love to be able to buy a cheap Dell or whatever and install OS X on it.

The switch should be relatively pain free for OS X application vendors. The biggest hit will be to the more complicated applications. Games and perhaps things like Photoshop or Flash might have some optimizations that are processor specific, but in the end there’s so much abstraction between the hardware and the top layer (Cocoa/Java/etc.) that the smaller vendors especially should be able to take their source code, select the x86 target, and hit compile. Voila, out comes an x86 OS X binary. At least, in theory that would be the case… I’ll have to do some looking to see what might break. Won’t be much.