A commenter writes:Thanks Tom for making a serious case for Mac in the enterprise. You do an awesome job. The Quad sounds very interesting as far as capability for semi-server configuration and high-end users. However I wonder what applications in the Mac world would really take advantage of it and who would use it.Thank you (all) for making this such a successful and enjoyable effort. With regard to applications for a Mac client with big guns, they are too numerous to recite. I can name a few categories typified by an insatiable hunger for greater firepower: Video and audio, photography, high-resolution graphics, advertising and publishing, Web design, animation, 3-D rendering, scientific visualization, medical imaging, modeling, film editing, compositing, simulation and biosciences, for starters. More mainstream applications include commercial software development, grid and service-oriented architectures, database management, CRM, J2EE app design and deployment, and generally anything one would do with Linux or Solaris, but which one would rather do using a consistent, simple and productive user/admin environment.I switched over two years ago and I am still “wowed” and do not need any convincing, however with the introduction of Universal and being able to run Windows in parallel, I wonder what is the place for a Quad G5 in the enterprise. I also wonder why IBM and Motorola didn’t push the development further before Apple turned away.Windows on a Mac comes down to convenience, not necessity, when running Windows is a slow and expensive pain in the neck. Now that Windows is cheap and easy to run on a Mac, we feel compelled to use it even though our actual need for Windows is no greater than before. Quad runs no risk of being eclipsed by its replacement. Software optimized for G5 will have a solid performance edge over the more conservatively-optimized, 32-bit x86 Mac apps that will prevail for some time to come. On specs, Quad has less in common with other Macs than it has with expensive, late-model 64-bit Intel and AMD dual core/dual socket workstations. Next year, Quad will be no one’s idea of last year’s model.As for Freescale/Motorola and IBM, my speculation is that Freescale begged to get fired by missing one delivery target after another for its much-hyped 8641D dual-core PowerPC. IBM ended up being the baby thrown out with the bath water. I imagine that there was a faction at Apple that did not root for Intel in Apple’s high-end systems, and I see Power Mac G5 Quad, shipped well after the Intel decision was made public, as their parting shot.Intel would have crawled over broken glass to snatch Apple’s first workstation away from IBM. It’s all speculation, but just the same, praises be to whomever shielded us from a Netburst Xeon Mac workstation and server. Another point I mentioned before is why Intel with its poorly planned shared resources when AMD would have made a better performant? Very few Mac users think about busses and on-chip memory controllers and glueless interconnects. That suits me, because that’s what I get paid to do. I trust that Apple’s engineers will make the most of the suppliers the company selects, and I know that Mac users will follow wherever Apple’s software goes. One thing’s certain: Any Intel CPU chosen by Apple will be showcased best in the Mac, and that’s putting it politely. Software Development