I'm not really a Mac user, infact I haven't really sat down to use a Mac since the days of Oregon Trail. But I was thinking it would be nice if Apple released a x86 compatible version of their OS X. Since most people own a x86 based pc, they could walk into a Best Buy or a similar type store and have an alternative to Windows sitting there on the shelf. I'm just sick of seeing hardware and software always being advertised as "designed for Windows". I don't even see the occasional Red Hat (Fedora) on the shelfs anymore. But I think if you're willing to pay $200+ for an OS, there could be something other than Windows sitting there.

Mac OS has been x86 compatible for about a year now, as Apple has switched from using PowerPC to standard x86 hardware in all of their machines.

While not an officially supported, you can install OS X on any PC that meets the minimum requirements and has supported hardware.

As nice as it would be, we will never see official support for installing OS X on non-Apple hardware. That has always been one of the strengths of Mac OS, the fact that the hardware it is running on is not as widely diverse as in the PC world. Apple can tailor the OS more closely and more accurately test it since they know that there is a relatively small pool of hardware that it can be run on.

check these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSx86
http://wiki.osx86project.org

Of course, the flip side of all that is that you can get a Mac now, say a MacBook, and install Windows on it <gag>, or Linux. Or Mac OS X, Windows and Linux, all three. Do it using Parallels or now VMware. There's also bootcamp, but the others give you easier access without having to reboot.

We're now recommending Macs to people who want or need Windows. Our own network testing laptop is a MacBook Pro running Mac OS X 10.5, Windows XP, and Ubuntu.

Anyone know why Apple started using Intel over PowerPC? I remember alot of people always liked Macs for audio and video projects.

Well, there's the official word, the rumors, and then what really goes on in Steve's mind.

It appears Steve wasn't happy with the pace or direction of the development of the PowerPC chip by IBM. He thought Intel was going more the direction and speed he wanted. Apple had proven previously that they could make a successful transition from one chip to another (from the Motorolla 68000 series to the PowerPC, which was designed from the ground up by IBM, Apple and Motorolla).

Then there are all the issues of synergy with being able to use components that have had their prices driven down by the PC market, being able to run Windows or Linux stuff on Apple computers more easily, etc. I don't know that these were stated in the official reasoning, but they seem obvious in retrospect and in watching what has happened.

As far as audio and video projects (graphic artists, photographers, musicians, etc. [creative types in general]), that's still true. It's in the details of the machine, the operating system, the applications and their integration.

Seems like Apple wants to make their money on their hardware more than their software, unlike MS. Maybe now that people can install Windows on Macs, more choices on Hardware and Software might pop up in stores. Right now the only store I can think of that will definitely have a Macbook or something would be the Apple Store, and there is only 1 around me that I know of.

Next time I go laptop shopping I will definitely include Macs in my search. I'm just hoping by then they will have more than just white for color options.

I recently bought Macs' G4Power Book w/1.67ghz processor and have wound up searching for open source graphic software to use on it because of prices.
I have a PCIII 600e slackware box, and Core 2 Duo e6600 xp box and windows is first in ease of use with far more free and even open source software avaiable, I run firefox on it if I go online to download software, that is it for online use for it.

Mac is more like Linux as far as robustness goes but quality software for it is expensive... thanks to open source community I finally have most of the graphics software I need in it, to see what all the quality graphics hype is about.

As I become more familiar with linux, specifically slackware12, which I run xfce on, its my all around box.
I just need to get a fax and scanner running on it. It took me forever to get a printer working. But I can upload photos and edit them fine.

I am learning gimp little by little and have Ooo on it and more comfortable on it.
If I can learn to do all the graphics work and maintain system files I can see myself just using Slackware as an OS.

I still haven't fallen in love with Mac... I do look forward to navigating it command line and thanks to linux I can do some of that. I still have a long way to go when it comes to manipulating file systems.