I know that when Apple moved from the PowerPC to Intel processors, you could hear and feel the groans around the world. How could Apple possibly abandon the processor platform that made their products the fastest PCs on the planet?

How indeed!

Well, as it turned out, the PowerPC roadmap didn’t favor Apple. When Steve Jobs first demonstrated the original Power Mac G5, he promised there would be a 3GHz version within a year. It never arrived, nor did a mobile version of the chip that didn’t fry the case or soak up battery life in minutes rather than hours.

Apple did the logical thing: They had parallel projects developing Mac OS X for both PowerPC and X86 processors. So if the former didn’t suit their needs, they could switch to the latter without a serious delay. Indeed, the Intel transition began in January 2006 and concluded just eight months later, way ahead of schedule. The main reason for that was that “secret” Mac OS X for Intel project, first revealed the previous summer, although the rumor sites had talked about it for years.

Even now, I wouldn’t be surprised if Apple is working on different versions of Mac OS X for multiple platforms in case another processor transition is required. But at least they have choices in x86 land. If Intel’s extremely promising development roadmap peters out, and AMD ends up with superior parts, it wouldn’t represent a huge engineering hurdle to make the appropriate switch. Indeed, our main Web server uses a pair of quad-core AMD Opteron processors, and the very same software runs just as well on the Intel Core 2 Duo installed on our backup server.

Back to the complaints: Remember when Apple ragged on PC makers for using integrated graphics for so many of their lower-cost models? No wonder lots of Mac users were upset when the Intel version of the Mac mini and MacBook replacement for the iBook had the very same components inside.

Now I should point out that, if you don’t care about gaming or heavy-duty 3D rendering, you probably aren’t going to see much of a difference. However, this didn’t stop Apple from seeking a better solution, which arrived with the installation of the NVIDIA 9400M integrated graphics chip on many Macs. Benchmarks confirm it’s roughly seven times faster than the Intel chips it replaced. Indeed, performance can match some discrete graphics processors, so this is a gain all around. But the dreadful term “integrated” is still apt to have a depressing ring to it, even though the key is how well it works, right?

When it comes to software, you just know that Mac OS X didn’t exactly receive raves from day one. Instead, we all fretted about the features that were missing. With 10.0, you couldn’t even burn a CD. What was Apple thinking?

Well, it’s pretty clear that the original Mac OS X release was meant for early adopters and developers to help them test the product and see what they needed to do in order to be compatible. But the main reason for a premature release of Mac OS X was no doubt to quell the naysayers who insisted it would never be released.

It’s not as if Apple’s history provided much encouragement. Before the acquisition of NeXT in 1996, efforts to create an industrial-strength operating system failed. Even after NeXT was brought into the fold, there had to be a major change of direction. Originally, there was Rhapsody, which was basically a reskinned NeXT operating system giving it a Mac-look. When major Mac developers, such as Adobe, complained about the difficulties in porting their software, Apple came up with Carbon to ease the way. All that no doubt added a couple of years, at the very least, to Mac OS X’s timetable.

Even after Mac OS X slowly gained traction, in addition to improved performance and reliability, Mac users remained unsatisfied. What about the features from the Classic Mac OS that were evidently neglected.

To be sure, inventive third parties began to fill in the gaps. So you had a way to easily customize the Apple menu, and there was even a Mac OS X version of Launcher for folks who couldn’t tolerate the Dock.

Nowadays, there are millions and millions of Mac users who never heard of Classic, and, in fact, their previous operating system was probably Windows. So they probably have fewer things to complain about. Those of us who stayed with Apple through thick and thin want everything to be perfect, however, and that’ll never happen. For people like me, Apple will never fully meet our expectations.

Then again, it probably doesn’t matter as much as it used to. Although the sales of new Macs will probably not wow anyone this quarter, in light of the world’s financial crisis, it’s also clear that Apple is not giving up its innovative ways.

If anything, I think Safari 4, even in a flawed beta form, demonstrates that Apple is definitely not out of ideas. What’s more, if what the rumor sites are reporting turns out to be accurate, Snow Leopard may be more than just a collection of under-the-hood changes.

And that, my friends, will simply give us more to complain about.

When the media grabs on to something, even if it’s a false concept, you just know they’ll never let it go. Take those frequent claims that Macs are “premium priced” compared to the PC.

In recent years, I’ve said over and over again that the Mac and the PC are priced in roughly the same ballpark so long as both are identically equipped, as much as possible, in terms of hardware and software. On the high-end of the scale, moreover, a Mac Pro — in reality a workstation more than a personal computer — is usually priced far less than the equivalent product from a mainstream maker such as Dell.

I realize my claims have rules and exceptions, and so you might be able to find areas where Apple simply can’t or won’t compete. But let me nonetheless put my cards on the table so you know where I’m coming from before you voice the same old arguments.

When I say “identically equipped,” it doesn’t just mean having the same processor, RAM complement and hard drive capacity. We have to take the comparisons a whole lot further for them to be accurate. Moreover, I am not talking about a home-built PC, since there is no possible equivalent from Apple.

Story continued in this week’s Tech Night Owl Newsletter.

All right, the European Union wants Microsoft to give customers a choice of browsers. Rather than just bundle Internet Explorer, they ought to be able to select from among popular contenders, such as Firefox, Safari and even Opera.

This seems a logical idea at first glance, especially if you turn back the clock a decade or so, when Microsoft’s Internet Explorer had over 90% of the browser market without any viable contenders in sight. In those days, there was even a Mac version, one that Apple accepted, along with the promise to continue to develop Office for the Mac, in exchange for making Internet Explorer the Mac OS’s default browser too.

How things have changed. Some years later, Safari arrived on Mac OS X and Internet Explorer left the platform. Under Windows, Internet Explorer’s “unstoppable” market dominance has steadily eroded in the wake of the introduction of Firefox.

When Firefox first arrived, I’m sure few believed that an application you had to make an effort to download would gain much presence compared to a product that was shipped preloaded with the operating system.

Of course, in those days, the tech media really believed Microsoft to be unbeatable, before its stock price dipped to roughly fifteen dollars and change a share. Then again, predictions are a dime a dozen, and you shouldn’t believe mine either. But I won’t stop making them.

The latest reports of browser share, based on ratings from Net Applications, indicate that Firefox has moved ahead of Internet Explorer 6 and is slowly closing in on Internet Explorer 7. Of course, Microsoft is busy with Internet Explorer 8 now. That’s the one that will, at long last, provide genuine support for browser standards rather than Microsoft standards. Or at least that’s what they claim. The betas are supposedly all right in that respect, but I wonder how long it’ll take before Internet Explorer — all versions combined — falls behind Firefox.

All right, let’s be realistic. Internet Explorer still holds roughly two thirds of the market. However, the numbers continue to dip steadily, all without any encouragement from the European Union. Indeed, if they were to prevail, Microsoft would likely suffer even further. Perhaps it serves them right for resting on their laurels with an inferior product for far too long.

Safari? Well, the 4.0 beta lifted Apple’s share of the browser market to over 10%, even though it was slightly lower otherwise.

Now I suppose some of the Windows fanboys (and girls) might want to dispute the numbers from Net Applications, and certainly it would be nice to have some third parties vet their methodology so we can have a better picture of just how well they truly reflect the real world.

I know that one of our other sites, The Paracast Community Forums, reaches people around the world using the Mac OS, Windows and even Linux. The numbers this month list all versions of Internet Explorer as taking 37.9% of the total among our visitors. Firefox is ahead of the game with 43.2%. Safari holds the third position at 14.3%, with Opera and other browsers picking up the balance.

Our numbers aren’t out of the ballpark either. Other sites are delivering figures that are also weighed heavily in Firefox’s favor, and I suspect Internet Explorer gets the lion’s share of its usage from people who pretty much stick with the stuff that came on their PC and never venture beyond those constraints except, perhaps, for Microsoft Office or perhaps some other business-oriented applications.

On the long haul, I think the falling stock price clearly indicates that the financial community has come to realize that Microsoft is in deep trouble. Their claims that it’s not them but the PC market don’t seem credible in light of recent surveys that seem to indicate Apple’s sales, while flat or slightly off, are holding on quite well. You’ll also notice that, in the wake of this week’s introduction of new Mac desktops, including the long-neglected Mac mini, Apple’s stock price has edged slightly higher, against the trend.

Notice, also, that Intel, which is facing a substantial slowdown because of reduced PC sales, once again honored Apple with the first crack at its latest line of Xeon processors for use in the newest Mac Pro. That’s the third time in a row that’s happened. Clearly Intel knows where its best chance for ongoing success lies. The infamous WinTel hegemony is clearly history, and AMD is not even in the race.

While I don’t see it happening this year, I expect to see Firefox achieve the number one spot in the browser wars in a couple of years at most, at which time Internet Explorer will be in a veritable free fall. Once the economy straightens out, don’t be surprised to see even faster increases in Mac sales. Right now Apple, who dominates the higher end of the PC marketplace, is probably meeting some sales resistance. Maybe that’s why they finally got around to upgrading the Mac mini. Maybe it’ll even get some promotion this time.

Of course, I reserve the right to be wrong. But I think my predictions about Microsoft’s inevitable fall from grace remain on target.

I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised to discover that a fair number of people are described as underwhelmed by Apple’s desktop product refreshes this week. The objections cover a surprising range, from the pricing to the nature of the upgrades, but in all respects, they’re not happy.

Let’s look at the pricing first. True to Apple’s ongoing policy, they simply improved the product without changing the cost structure. Some analysts have been suggesting that Apple must cut prices in order to compete during a downward economic spiral, but they aren’t paying attention. Besides, Apple has roughly $28 billion hanging around, one expects in a solvent bank, so they are under little pressure to boost short-term sales at the expense of long-term profitability.

When it comes to the iMac, complaints about the cost of the new version just don’t make any sense. Consider that you can now get the entry-level 20-inch version for $1,199, and the configuration is quite close to the $1,499 model of the prior generation. For that price, you now get a 24-inch model.

To me, that’s a $300 price reduction, right? Now maybe my math skills aren’t what they should be, but Apple has said the very same thing. In a sense, they’ve moved the product line down one price level, with better options at the higher-end of the scale.

Now I suppose you could argue that Apple could have done more to beef up the iMac, particularly when it comes to having discrete graphics chips on the cheaper models. Certainly you have to consider that you are sacrificing at least 256MB of RAM for integrated graphics, but the NVIDIA 9400M chip does great work, and is apt to perform better than the ATI chips on the older iMac. That, to me, is an improvement.

When it comes to the Mac mini, what can I say? No, Apple didn’t invest in a new form factor, although they reworked the chassis with more green-friendly parts. The hardware is suitably upgraded, particularly in addressing the lame graphics capability of the last version, released in the summer of 2007. Has it been that long?

I’m also happy to see that Apple has demonstrated improved faith in the mini, which has been the orphan stepchild of the Mac desktop lineup for far too long. Maybe they’ll even pour a few dollars for direct promotion this time, and not just because it appeals to the environmental segment. I doubt very much if most people will buy one for that reason. It’ll be more the desire to get a faster computer for a relatively small amount of money. Indeed, the climate is such that the mini might really take off with the right presentation.

But then what do I know about marketing?

As far as the Mac Pro is concerned, it’s a natural refinement. The chassis is reworked somewhat to simplify the upgrade process, which was, to my way of thinking, pretty easy with the previous version.

The new Intel Nehalem Xeon chips might seem a harder sell. Faster performance, but a lower clock rate. But the gigahertz race is long ago and far away, and I trust customers realize now that these raw specs don’t tell the entire story about a personal computer’s performance potential. It’s still benchmarks. In saying that, the eight-core Nehalem upgrades are monumentally expensive, so souping up the new box isn’t going to be an inviting prospect. However, it’s nice to be able to upgrade the eight-core model from the standard 6GB RAM to 16GB for $500. That’s not a bad deal at all, and it’ll present a challenge to third-party memory suppliers.

Going to 32GB, for $6,100, is utter nonsense. I think 16GB is the sweet spot for the Mac Pro. That’s my current configuration, and our Web server, which uses a pair of quad-core AMD processors, has a similar memory complement.

In all, I think Apple refreshed their desktops in a way that makes perfect sense regardless of the economic situation. Being environmentally friendly is only a small part of what you get if you are ready to buy a new Mac.

Is there something missing? Well, I think that, with over 70% of Mac sales in the portable category, the hopes and dreams for the legendary “mythical midrange Mac minitower” will quite likely never be fulfilled. Although I think there’s a hole in the Mac lineup for a product of this sort, incorporating basically the guts of the iMac sans the display, with some added expandability, the market has left the gate. It just won’t get enough of an audience to make sense.

I would have also found it interesting to put a quad-core mobile processor in the high-end iMacs. That would have made them compelling alternatives for content creators who just can’t see their way clear to buy a fully-outfitted Mac Pro nowadays.

Sure such a product might cannibalize sales somewhat from the high-end, but I think Apple should be grateful for any sale at this point in time. Besides, users who want the ultimate Mac technology will still cherish a Mac Pro below their desks.

As far me, there’s nothing here that makes me want to toss out my existing hardware, even if I had the funds to make that investment right now, especially since I did all my upgrades last year. I think I’ll pass until 2010.