Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

10 years ago today, Apple flipped the bird to PowerPC

Gamer9430

Gamer9430

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Apr 22, 2014
2,248
1,405
USA
Ten years have passed since Apple first launched Intel Macs. From this day ten years ago and forward, Apple has done everything possible to kill off PowerPC. Anyway, Apple launched the Core Duo iMac and the first ever MacBook Pro as well, which also featured a Core Duo. Soon after, a core duo MacBook came and replaced the iBook and PowerBook G4 12in. Later on, the Mac Mini Core Duo and the Mac Pro Xeon were released as well, sealing off PowerPC for good. These early Core Duo machine weren't much of an improvement over PPC (I have the Core Duo iMac and can testify to that fact), however, when the Core 2 Duos rolled in, it was prevalent that Intel was the best choice and C2Ds were much more powerful than a G4 and even G5s.

LONG LIVE PPC!
 
Last edited:
keysofanxiety said:
Huh? The first-gen Core Duo machines were a massive improvement over PPC.
Click to expand...
OllyW said:
Especially on the laptops and Mac mini as the G4 was well past it's sell by date.
Click to expand...

I personally didn't find them that much better in terms of desktop-class performance vs a G5. For laptops, however, it was definitely an improvement, both in terms of speed and power consumption.
 
LightBulbFun said:
No Love for the Xserve? it was the Last PowerPC mac apple made heh
Click to expand...

I'll admit, my writeup was done very quickly, so I missed smaller things like the Xserve. It was more to say that it happened 10 years ago today rather than fully covering the entire transition period from PPC to Intel
 
Gamer9430 said:
Ten years have passed since Apple first launched Intel Macs. From this day ten years ago and forward, Apple has done everything possible to kill off PowerPC. Anyway, Apple launched the Core Duo iMac and the first ever MacBook Pro as well, which also featured a Core Duo. Soon after, a core duo MacBook came and replaced the iBook and PowerBook G4 12in. Later on, the Mac Mini Core Duo and the Mac Pro Xeon were released as well, sealing off PowerPC for good. These early Core Duo machine weren't much of an improvement over PPC (I have the Core Duo iMac and can testify to that fact), however, when the Core 2 Duos rolled in, it was prevalent that Intel was the best choice and C2Ds were much more powerful than a G4 and even G5s.

LONG LIVE PPC!
Click to expand...
To my knowledge the most significant difference between the Core Duo and Core 2 Duo is the latter supported 64 bit addressing whereas the former did not. Otherwise they're essentially the same.
 
The end of PowerPC was announced 11 years after the introduction, so we're really not far from having Intel chips in our Macs longer than we had PPCs. Of course, you never know what could happen just around the corner. I don't think anybody suspected in 2003 or 2004 that the PowerPC days were nearly over with all the hype surrounding the G5.
 
A more fair comparaison is a Mac Mini G4 1.5 vs Mac Mini Core Solo 1.5 cheapest model.

Probably some games should run faster on a ATI Radeon 9200 than on GMA 950.

But geekbench is 855 vs 1387 about CPU raw power.

On iMacs G5 vs Intel CoreDuo is more than double geekbench.

Rossetta has a CPU tax, and for some native PowerPC software, Intel was no option.


Incredible how fast time runs! 10 years!
 
G4fanboy said:
Probably some games should run faster on a ATI Radeon 9200 than on GMA 950.
Click to expand...

The GMA950 was terrible in 2006, and even more terrible when Apple quit using it in 2007. I have both a first gen Mini(now upgraded to a C2D) and an iMac 5,2(the low end EDU model) with a GMA950. The GPU isn't a big deal in the Mini since I run it headless with SL Server, but it is in the iMac. I used MacPostFactor to put Mountain Lion on the iMac, and I can honestly understand why Apple cut off this model past Lion. I haven't been brave enough to go past ML.

Meanwhile, my 2006 Mac Pro 1,1 chugs right along, now with 8 cores, 16gb of RAM, an SSD, a 1gb GEForce 8800GT, and running Mavericks. I could easily run El Capitan, but I don't want to :) .
 
I must say, the Intel transition revealed at the June 2005 Developer's Conference is fascinating to watch.
Steve Jobs appears more formally dressed - all in black, like an undertaker.

The only thing that I can ever remember tech guy Patrick Norton talking about
is his own experience describing when the Intel switch was revealed.
He said the audience gasped.
Now whether it was one huge collective gasp,
or a series of echoing gasps like random flash bulbs within the audience,
I thought Norton's recollection really quite funny.
I almost want to find audio evidence of this (but too lazy, lol).
 
bunnspecial said:
The GMA950 was terrible in 2006, and even more terrible when Apple quit using it in 2007. I have both a first gen Mini(now upgraded to a C2D) and an iMac 5,2(the low end EDU model) with a GMA950. The GPU isn't a big deal in the Mini since I run it headless with SL Server, but it is in the iMac. I used MacPostFactor to put Mountain Lion on the iMac, and I can honestly understand why Apple cut off this model past Lion. I haven't been brave enough to go past ML.
Click to expand...
As someone in this thread pointed out it's pretty ironic that Apple's website for the Mac mini actually mocked Intel integrated graphics before the switch was announced:
Do More Simultaneously
Your Mac mini uses its dedicated graphics chip to offload visual tasks from the main CPU. So the G4 processor doesn’t have to worry about layering windows, moving them around, scrolling through web pages or worse, figuring out the pattern umpteen laser beams make when reflected off a shielded spaceship during combat. The Radeon 9200 takes care of all that, and does a better job than a general purpose CPU since it’s designed especially for such tasks. Even better, the Radeon 9200 gets to use 32MB of dedicated memory, which lets the G4 processor use all of its RAM for other tasks. That means you can run many more programs at once.


Lock the Target
Or one 3D game. Go ahead, just try to play Halo on a budget PC. Most say they’re good for 2D games only. That’s because an “integrated Intel graphics” chip steals power from the CPU and siphons off memory from system-level RAM. You’d have to buy an extra card to get the graphics performance of Mac mini, and some cheaper PCs don’t even have an open slot to let you add one.
Click to expand...
 
redheeler said:
As someone in this thread pointed out it's pretty ironic that Apple's website for the Mac mini actually mocked Intel integrated graphics before the switch was announced:
Click to expand...
Its funny they used Halo as an example of a game that played well on the G4. Buddy of mine bought the last 14" iBook right before the MacBook introduction, and returned it for the MacBook. First thing he said was how the iBook was FAR better for games than the MacBook. Halo was the game he specifically mentioned.
 
keysofanxiety said:
Huh? The first-gen Core Duo machines were a massive improvement over PPC.
Click to expand...

Compared to a G5? Not performance-wise. A G5 held its own against several of the first gen Intel Macs. They did maul the G4's to death, though.

The problem was always how the G5's couldn't handle being in a laptop due to heat and power consumption issues. That's what kept the G4 in the minis and all laptops. Since the G5 processor was in no way going to be able to be in a laptop/mini within the next decade, Apple made the switch.
 
Wow, 10 years already. It really does make you wonder what's next. It's also been almost 20 years since the first gibberish about ARM-based Macs!
 
redheeler said:
As someone in this thread pointed out it's pretty ironic that Apple's website for the Mac mini actually mocked Intel integrated graphics before the switch was announced:
Click to expand...

That was why I stopped buying new Apple hardware at that point - the sheer audacity of pretending their previous enmity against Intel didn't exist. I've no objection to change at all, it was just the sly marketing manoeuvre I couldn't stomach.
 
Geez, still bearing a grudge 10 years later! Oh come on, it's not like it was the first time that Apple have done a u-turn. Go back through Apple history and IBM and Microsoft have both been the enemy, far more so than Intel. Microsoft helped Apple keep afloat after the Spindler disasters in the mid 90s, and still produce software to this day. The enemy of the 80s, IBM designed and manufactured the PowerPC in the 90s and are now selling Apple devices and consulting to go with them having divested themselves of the Desktop PC division to Lenovo.

I like the Intel Macs. It was brave and much needed business decision. I'm proud to say I was an early adopter of an MacBookPro1,1 in March 2006. I still like the old machines, but I'll use them to their strengths instead of donning the blinkers and belligerently using one day in day out like it's a religious experience.
 
MagicBoy said:
Geez, still bearing a grudge 10 years later! Oh come on, it's not like it was the first time that Apple have done a u-turn. Go back through Apple history and IBM and Microsoft have both been the enemy, far more so than Intel. Microsoft helped Apple keep afloat after the Spindler disasters in the mid 90s, and still produce software to this day. The enemy of the 80s, IBM designed and manufactured the PowerPC in the 90s and are now selling Apple devices and consulting to go with them having divested themselves of the Desktop PC division to Lenovo.

I like the Intel Macs. It was brave and much needed business decision. I'm proud to say I was an early adopter of an MacBookPro1,1 in March 2006. I still like the old machines, but I'll use them to their strengths instead of donning the blinkers and belligerently using one day in day out like it's a religious experience.
Click to expand...
I too ended up with a MacBook Pro 1,1 in May of 06, and despite the initial shock of Intel switch, I was amazed at the performance that machine offered. It was tough, because my heart wanted a PowerBook G4 really bad, but my head knew the future was with the Intel Macs. I think initially my fear was Macs powered with terrible Pentium M chips and covered with "Intel Inside" stickers on the palm rests. Once it was clear the new Core architecture was NOTHING like the previous Netburst chips, I was really pleased. Obviously my love for the PowerPC still runs strong and I still feel like the G5 never really got its "fair chance" to show what it could do with a fully 64 bit OS and a few generations of improvement. It would have been great to see the e600 dual G4 get a shot in the Apple laptop lineup too, but it just wasn't meant to be. Oh what could have been!
 
The Pentium M chips were pretty much the forerunner of the Core Duo, I wouldn't classify them as terrible. A Pentium M was roughly performance equivalent to a Pentium 4 at two thirds the clock speed and a quarter the TDP. A lot of the lessons learned from those chips went into the Core. Not bad for a backup project based on a technology from a cancelled P3 derived SoC. ;)

Now the mobile P4, that wasn't good, hence the backup skunkworks project! ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LightBulbFun
MagicBoy said:
Geez, still bearing a grudge 10 years later! Oh come on, it's not like it was the first time that Apple have done a u-turn. Go back through Apple history and IBM and Microsoft have both been the enemy, far more so than Intel. Microsoft helped Apple keep afloat after the Spindler disasters in the mid 90s, and still produce software to this day. The enemy of the 80s, IBM designed and manufactured the PowerPC in the 90s and are now selling Apple devices and consulting to go with them having divested themselves of the Desktop PC division to Lenovo.

I like the Intel Macs. It was brave and much needed business decision. I'm proud to say I was an early adopter of an MacBookPro1,1 in March 2006. I still like the old machines, but I'll use them to their strengths instead of donning the blinkers and belligerently using one day in day out like it's a religious experience.
Click to expand...
Except for some limited reasons using a PPC is just that...a religious experience. I can't explain it but using my PowerMac G5 system just seems different than using the Mac Pro sitting right next to it despite the fact they both function identically. It's odd but I find myself using the G5 for lightweight tasks (mostly terminal work for my Solaris / Linux servers) and browsing. When it comes to something that requires performance I use something considerably more modern.
 
I agree that I don't use mine nearly as much as any of my MacBooks, it's just that everything I want to do can be done with them whereas G5s can do a portion of what I want, but not everything. Take this back to 2005 and I owned a 15" 1.25GHz 15" PBG4, you bet I would be using the G5 every day for everything but time has changed (10+years) and I find myself using my workhorse Hackintosh for everything.

Don't get me wrong, I really would like to use my G5 more and if my ElCap Theme Pack makes iCloud work it will help out the G5 quite a bit from a usability standpoint.
 
Working at a TV station at the time I remember a lot of production folks and engineers getting very nervous. The infrastructure was built on G5 at the time, and a lot of FCP licenses. They slowly made the transition to Mac Pro though and things obviously worked out quite well (until about 2011).

I still remember walking into work one morning and stepping on a small pool of antifreeze. One of the last remaining G5's was mothballed to a back area for non-essential projects and had sprang a pretty good leak over night. When I opened it up it was a horror story. It got pitched that day...
 
Please explain why.

Core2 is the same architecture with EM64T (64-bit) added. The late 2006 machines use the same socket, same FSB, same manufacturing process and the same chipset therefore very similar performance. Less than 3% on a typical Geekbench score at the same clock rate.
 
MagicBoy said:
Please explain why.

Core2 is the same architecture with EM64T (64-bit) added. The late 2006 machines use the same socket, same FSB, same manufacturing process and the same chipset therefore very similar performance. Less than 3% on a typical Geekbench score at the same clock rate.
Click to expand...

Well, the whole reason I'm going to C2D on my CD iMac is so that I can run OSes beyond SL and open the doorway to 64-bit Apps, as well as a slight improvement in clock speed from 1.83GHz to 2.0GHz. Of course this all came to be in the long run of the machines and this wasn't really an issue back 10 years ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back