In the weeks leading up to June 6, 2005, the Apple rumor mill was working overtime. Word on the street was that Steve Jobs, Apple Computer's CEO and self-appointed spokesperson, was about to unload something shocking at their 2005 Developer's Conference. There were many theories at first, but as the days crept closer, technology analysts concluded that Apple would be doing something drastic to keep up with ever-increasing PC processor speeds.

Jobs had promised that they would release a 3GHz desktop computer back in 2003; fast-forward to 2005, and they still haven't breached 2.7GHz. To put things in perspective, Intel's Pentium 4 recently hit 3.8GHz. While these differences aren't really significant to most users, to Apple, they represent an inability to compete in a market where they've always struggled. Apple isn't completely at fault, however. That dubious honor goes to IBM, who has made Apple's processors since 1994.

In 2003, IBM's G5 processor was supposed to be the key to higher performance for Apple computers, and it was, for a time. Today, however, it is mainly defined by its problems, not by its performance. The chip runs extremely hot at its current speeds, which doesn't leave much room for pushing the speed further. Because it runs hot, every G5 Macintosh requires a ridiculously elaborate cooling system. With their cooling fans running at maximum speed, these computers sound like airplanes getting ready for takeoff. This is simply an example of bad engineering on IBM's part, but the heat issue has made it impossible for Apple to release a 3GHz desktop. It is also the single greatest problem with making a G5 laptop, which is something Jobs and company have been working on since 2003.

On June 6, Jobs officially announced that Apple would be moving away from IBM processors in 2006. The surprising bit, though, was with whom they chose to make their future processors. It was a company often chided for having too close a relationship with Microsoft, a company considered the juggernaut of PC processor manufacturers: It was Intel. After spending years proclaiming the superiority of their IBM G5-based computers over Intel's Pentium 4, Apple went ahead and joined up with biggest competitors in the processor field.

I'll spare you the technical ramifications regarding this change; let's just say that Intel's new chips are faster and require less energy than the G5. The practical implications are worth spending some time on, though. The Mac was always incompatible with the standard PC because of its processor. Now, Apple is finally using the same processors as Windows machines, and this change opens a world of possibilities. There won't be anything preventing users from installing Windows onto these new Macs, and from the looks of it, Apple may even be encouraging this behavior.

While it would be technically possible for Apple to make OSX, their much-lauded operating system, available for any PC, they seem to be hesitant to go down this route. Hackers have already shown that it isn't very difficult to accomplish this, but Apple may continue in their stubborn tradition of controlling Mac hardware with an iron fist, making it impossible to install OSX on any PC legally. Of course this makes sense for Apple; they naturally wouldn't want any old Dell machine to become a Mac simply by installing software. By choosing to support their hardware only, they can also continue to charge a premium for the so-called "Mac experience."

This switch may be the biggest change Apple has ever gone through, but in the end it may make them a much worthier competitor in the PC market. In the future, it will be much easier for developers to make Mac-compatible programs, games and hardware. Keep an eye out next year, because things are going to get very interesting for Apple users.

Next week, I'll look into Google's steadily increasing attempts to take over the world. They say they're not evil, but should we believe them?