Apple to reconsider PPC

Discussion in 'Apple, Inc and Tech Industry' started by Chance9888, Jul 26, 2008.

  1. Chance9888 macrumors member

    Chance9888

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2008
    Location:
    Louisiana
    #1
    I know this sounds like a stupid post, but it will make a good point. If Apple were to just make intel and PPC Computers, selling the PPC computers for less, would they make more sales? Like if they still sold the iMac g5's for about 899, i'm sure it would have a lot of buyers, especially the first time mac users. They could still sell the intel's for the more advanced users, also.
    Just trying to make a point, what are your reviews to this idea?
     
  2. NotFound macrumors 6502a

    NotFound

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2006
  3. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #3
    The truly advanced users would pick PPC because they know the x86 architecture is horrible garbage.
     
  4. kabunaru Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    #4
    Why not make the Intel Macs cheap and PowerPC Macs at the higher-end scale (like current Macs)?
    People should have an option between PowerPC and x86 Intel.
     
  5. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2008
    Location:
    Britain
    #5
    Besides you can pick up a Intel Dual Core for $50 nowdays.
     
  6. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #6
    Trouble is going forward they wouldn't want to support and develop two separate product lines.

    Also, would the PPC actually be cheaper than the Intel to produce?
     
  7. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #7
    Macs increased in price when they switched to Intel.
     
  8. richard.mac macrumors 603

    richard.mac

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    51.50024, -0.12662
    #8
    Apple must have seen some really insane sh*t when they saw the future Intel roadmap.

    i.e. Apple will not go back to Power PC
     
  9. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #9
    Apple just went to Intel because Motorola was not going anywhere.
     
  10. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #10
    Freescale and IBM both would update CPUs to win Apple back, but in 2 years when the next generation is due -- they'd look at their sales once again and decline to update to keep up with the x86, and go back to using last years tech and incremental updates.

    Same thing they've done for a long long time.

    Hey, lets try to capture more of the market ... ooops, didn't work. Tough luck Apple on the next updates and go out and find another OS vendor or three to compete with you and increase sales of the platform.
     
  11. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #11
    Freescale/Motorola only cares about embedded/industrial.
     
  12. Peace macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12
    I've owned PPC G5 Mac Pros and Intel Mac Pros.

    The Intel Mac Pro leaves the PPC G5 in the dust.
     
  13. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #13
    So? Many people just buy a Mac because it looks pretty, not because they couldn't get faster PCs for the same money.

    The same thing goes for the processors. The true techies prefer an elegant CPU than a faster hack.
     
  14. zap2 macrumors 604

    zap2

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2005
    Location:
    Washington D.C
    #14
    That only because Apple picked those chips to go into Macs.....Apple could have put crap chips in Macs, lowered cost, but they went higher end, and so they cost more(and because Apple like a nice profit margin on their stuff)
     
  15. nplima macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Location:
    UK
    #15
  16. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    That depends on what you are doing. Apple switched to Intel for two reasons where are really two facets of the same reason. Intel had developed a new fabrication process that dramatically cut heat production of its chips. [For years prior to that, Intel chips could fry eggs.] Intel also offered a large catalog of processors to choose from off-the-shelf and a vast engineering operation that relieved Apple of the need to engineer its own support chips.

    Those who believe that Apple will not return to the PPC are probably right. However, never say never. I am absolutely convinced that Apple will not become a 100% Intel-based OEM. Apple learned a lesson from the IBM/Freescale experience it will never forget.
     
  17. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #17
    Apple should return to PPC. IMO Intel still makes crap.













    Nehalem could change my mind though...

    Don
     
  18. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #18
    The main reason for lower power consumption in the new chips is not the fabrication process, but a shift from the MARKETING-driven design of the Pentium 4 to an engineering-oriented one in the Core.
     
  19. Dmac77 macrumors 68020

    Dmac77

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Location:
    Michigan
    #20
    Unfortunately!

    The only benefit that came from switching to x86 is the ability to install winblows. But now that I think about it, that actually is a strike against x86 Macs.

    Don
     
  20. TuffLuffJimmy macrumors G3

    TuffLuffJimmy

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    I'm glad apple chose the better processor. A faster, better more efficient processor is going to be better than a slow, hot resource hungry processor no matter how 'elegant' said processor is.
     
  21. iMacmatician macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2008
    #22
    Reminds me of Barcelona's "native" quad-core design. More elegant? Yes. Higher performing? Noooo. :rolleyes:
     
  22. Lord Blackadder macrumors G5

    Lord Blackadder

    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Sod off
    #23
    Supporting two architectures simultaneously is madness, unless you (as Apple is doing) you are transitioning between architectures, in which case it's temporary.
     
  23. cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #24
    You're comparing an old processor to a current one. That's not fair.
     
  24. exabytes18 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Location:
    Suburb of Chicago
    #25
    Yeah, back in the day, all the processors ran significantly warmer than they do today. G5s ran hot, P4s ran hot. Power efficiency has taken center stage so the days of throwing stripped down enterprise grade chips like the 970 into consumer grade products is over.

    IBM still makes great processors, but their architecture isn't targeted at consumers. So yeah, if the true techie feels better having more registers / wider registers / whatever it is that makes their heart beat / it really doesn't concern the consumer since they really have no use for it.

    Core2 is robust and efficient. It works well for laptops, desktops, servers, and supercomputers. It's what Apple saw when they Intel showed them their roadmap. It was clear then and it's clear now, Intel holds the processor crown and is defending it well.
     

Share This Page