Show me the smallest amount of evidence that IBM, the world's largest multinational computer corporation, wasn't capable of finding what it wanted. Bill offered something, and they were happy with the terms, period. Bill would not have gotten his non-exclusive deal if IBM didn't want to allow it.
You don't have even the slightest form of objective proof; therefore, what you're saying here is nothing more than a poorly formed opinion.
here. Neck and neck in most places, behind in some, ahead on others. And this was on a 768 MB machine, pretty generous for that day. Machines with less RAM do better since native OS 9 would be using its outdated virtual memory more. Application launch times are also generally much faster in Classic than native.
Steve Jobs decided to ditch the entire hardware platform and start from scratch on x86. Not long ago, you and other Mac zealots were criticizing x86 hardware.
Jobs ditched because IBM wasn't supporting the platform. The PPC had a great architecture with great capabilities and lots of room to grow, but that doesn't mean anything if the vendor won't continue R&D and constantly has supply problems.
I still stand by my criticism of Intel's P4-based architecture, as well as Intel's design for dual-core (Intel recently admitted it was badly slapped together). Both the PPC and AMD are far superior in every way. But Jobs knew something we didn't at the time of the switch decision -- details of Intel's roadmap. This roadmap includes much more efficient processors that no longer subscribe to the P4's "clock is everything" philosophy, continuing where Intel is with the Pentium M (which I've had praise for in this forum).
My only guess as to why Apple chose Intel over AMD is the massive discounts that only Intel is capable of giving its prominent customers.