Now I am curious about this, maybe because my only Mac Experinces were in tech club at high school ( we had a ton of iMac G3s. Oh good god, I wanted to chuck those out the window. OS9? Or was it 8? I forget, so slow. But I think that was due to the complete lack of ram these things had ). And the Dual 1.8gzh G5 I picked up, which I have to say. I like very much, and I do hope to pick up a Power Mac G3 at some point ( Graphite of course ). So maybe I just don't ' get it '
I heard this hyped up back in high school by the " Mac people " at the school, and you did hear alot about power PC. Then came the intel switch...oh boy.
Maybe I'm ranting a bit, but what is the difference between a PPC or Intel experience? Or even if was an AMD? Via? or whatever processor. If you take the same Power Mac Case, Have one with an Intel Processor, a Power PC Processor, and hell why not an AMD processor. And they are all somehow running the same version of OSX, with the same programs, and all these systems have virtually the same performance. Can you really tell what type of processor its running? I wouldn't think so.
Now before someone flips at me, I'm not knocking anyone who ever said " Well power PC is what Made Mac a Mac ", I just kinda don't buy that.
And its a shame that power PC is gone from the main stream ( Xbox 360, PS3 and the Wii all use power PC I think ), I am a fan of better technology. Power PC is a much better architecture than X86, that's from everything I've read. From what I've also read and correct me If I'm wrong on this as well.
Why power PC went away from apple, from what I understand:
1: IBM's lack of ability to ramp up the performance in the G5 as promised
2: IBM's lack of ability to get the damn thing to run cool enough to put into a mobile computer
3: IBM's more lack of ability to get costs under control
4: IBM's lack of ability, again to get the Dual Core's to run cool enough to be able to use air cooling, which led to liquid cooling systems. Which much like all early liquid cooling systems. Were not the most reliable.
5: Intel closed the performance gap rather quickly when the G5 faltered.
This is the most common reason's I"ve heard for the death of PPC,
To correct some misconceptions here. Motorola 68000 was what made a Mac a Mac. The Motorola 68000 wasn't the only CPU used by Apple, but was also used by 2 other former giants -- Atari and Commodore with their Atari ST, TT, STE, Falcon plus Medusa clones and the Amiga line from Amiga 1000 all the way to A4000 and their clones. Amiga then was extensively used as video editing machines (Toasters), Atari with music and MIDI and the macs as desktop publishing stations. When macs went PowerPC, there were the same condemnations you get from people who are pro 680x0 and those who are embracing PowerPC and slowly but surely, the macs and the Windows PCs were slowing taking over the unique market segments Atari and Amiga held until eventually, you only have 2 machines that could do or exceeded the abilities of those older machines. Today, you will have a hard time finding any Atari or Amiga in action in North America sans some collectors, some pros or museums running them. Probably Europe would be a better place to find them. Suffice to say, what makes and keeps a PowerPC going in 2012 is software. It has been this way since the days when we still call our computers a "micro-computer". We dropped the moniker only because like the "new iPad", it has now gone mainstream.
In Vancouver, Canada, we still have 2 places that sell old Mac software with one of them located in North Vancouver that still sell vintage Macs and software. You can still do some things on older Macs.
However, Tom's video does point out certain things that you may not be able to do with older hardware. Video editing.
In the past, video editing can be done with the fastest G5s you can buy and they aren't really all that expensive nowadays. But wait, a lot of people are now going to photojournalism these days learning how to shoot video, or do video documentary with the newer generation of DSLR. The Canon EOS 5D Mark II started the trend and now eclipsed by the 5D Mark 3. Nikon now has the Nikon D4 and D800 (both 16MP and 36MP) machines that can record compressed 1080p footage as well as output true uncompressed 1080p through their HDMI ports. What that means is that, for modern video work, it's really not a matter of format standards that you need to deal with now, but the time it needs to do edit and processing footage. We have local video editing shops and schools who had Quad G5s then are starting to dump them because they are really not up to the standards for today's work. And if you try editing a 24MP or a 36MP RAW image file from a Nikon D3X or a D800, the G5 or souped up G4 are just not going to cut it in Photoshop. If you want to work in this industry today, you are not going to cut it with a G5. So, which is why I am really interested to see what Tom would come up with where the experts in the field are wrong. Also, digital cameras are improving too and they are and can output much higher and higher pixels of images and videos at the same cost of their older cameras. When you are forced to buy a new camera, all of a sudden your computer is not able to keep up. And that's going on today.
What people seem to have neglected is that, in 2012, Intel's Ivy Bridge will have better processing capabilities than the older Sandy Bridge. Apple Macs will be faster and better for the same price. I mean, a Core i5 Mac Mini priced at $519 refurbished has a lot of horsepower under the hood already and can last you a little while. New buyers will not buy a PowerPC, because they do not understand it. That leaves people like Tom who are on a budget. They choose either a PowerPC they need to run a certain software or a pre-loved Mac Intel. The majority of people will choose pre-loved Intels. Software is what dictates people buying habits NOT hardware love and you can run a lot more with pre-loved Intels.