The G6 would never make a desktop computer let alone a laptop! This is very old news at this point!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Did Apple Do The Right Thing in Moving To Intel From PowerPC???
- Thread starter rashdown_online
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The G6 would never make a desktop computer let alone a laptop! This is very old news at this point!
Well, actually, it is. I take it to Uni every day, and sometimes use it during lectures, in Libraries and in common rooms. For word processing stuff, it is certainly not hot, or noisy.
One thing is pretty certain about the move of Apple from powerPC to intel and that is: Intel has one less a competition and pretty sad the fact that competition is necessary for development. It is becoming a uni-intel world. Hope the AMD guys keep up the competion!!! It is then we the ultimate users get immediate benefit of newest technologies
I'm dead serious. I can use my MacBook on my lap without discomfort, while I couldn't come close to doing the same with my iBook.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kyI9-SlXrC8&feature=PlayList&p=0C25BE79D6E37140&index=4
Could you run windows with the power pc chip? Without the move to Intel I would never have even looked at a Mac.
Could you run windows with the power pc chip? Without the move to Intel I would never have even looked at a Mac.
What, for stating an opinion? Please.
Good for you. I use XP or Vista (when I have to) on a high end MESH computer designed for Windows. I use OSX Tiger on a Macbook. They both do what I want them to.
Except XP - at least the version I use - isn't slow, doesn't "crash all the time" (XP has fallen over about half a dozen times in the five years I've been using it) and is about as simple an OS as you can get (I have no idea what you're using XP for if you think it's complicated). Tiger on the Macbook has frozen out about the same number of times, is about as stable and doesn't 'just work' all the time. In short they've both been fine for me, both have good points and annoyances and both serve the purpose they're needed for.
LOL. Opinions, great aren't they! Seriously, you may want to actually think before you start typing in future. It'll stop you looking like a rabid fanboy who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Although I fear it's a bit late in the day for that.
Acutally you could run Windows in Virtual PC 2007 for Mac on PPC. Granted you couldn't say do a dual boot and bootcamp it, but for most people virtualization(emulation) was fine.
It was slow as hell, I had it on my iMac G5 and XP was simple unsuable because it was so slow. Windows 2000 was an improvement but still not ideal. VP7 was a joke and is really no comparison to what we have now.
Well I was answering a specific question. Not that I would consider running Windows a feature that Apple (or anyone) should be proud of. Cause, unless you are stealing Windows, you are giving them money.
the fact of the matter is that ibm wasn't performing and they had to go somewhere else.
while amd is tempting, at the time (not sure if this is still true) they were getting most of their supplies from IBM (and having inventory issues of their own). this would be like having problems with Dodge so you go buy a Jeep.
deals with intel and at&t have shown that apple is willing to dance with the devil to get what they want. the business tactics and moral standings of both companies are definatly not apple-like. but then again, maybe apple isn't apple-like.
was it the right decision? for apple, probably. for us? probably not. just one more step towards an intel only world.
remember when there were apples and wintels? at least windows has the option of AMD. no reason apple couldn't from a technical aspect, if OSX runs on x86. probably some philosophical/contractual reason though.
i'd buy an AMD mac in a second.
while amd is tempting, at the time (not sure if this is still true) they were getting most of their supplies from IBM (and having inventory issues of their own). this would be like having problems with Dodge so you go buy a Jeep.
deals with intel and at&t have shown that apple is willing to dance with the devil to get what they want. the business tactics and moral standings of both companies are definatly not apple-like. but then again, maybe apple isn't apple-like.
was it the right decision? for apple, probably. for us? probably not. just one more step towards an intel only world.
remember when there were apples and wintels? at least windows has the option of AMD. no reason apple couldn't from a technical aspect, if OSX runs on x86. probably some philosophical/contractual reason though.
i'd buy an AMD mac in a second.
Since Apple moved away from the PPC chips, Intel has been far, far stronger than AMD.
AMD are still playing catch up. And I am pretty sure that they will be for a while.
Microsoft is the reason the G5's stalled?
I knew IBM was working on that 3-core chip for the 360 but I didn't think it effected Apple, boy was I wrong.
Yeah, it's weird having an Intel in a Mac but whatever, it still runs OS X, that's what makes it different from the rest.
I knew IBM was working on that 3-core chip for the 360 but I didn't think it effected Apple, boy was I wrong.
Yeah, it's weird having an Intel in a Mac but whatever, it still runs OS X, that's what makes it different from the rest.
The idea of an AMD based Mac isn't such a crazy idea - it was bantered around in the early days of the rumoured Intel adoption for use in the laptop range.
I'm sure Apple haven't ruled out the idea all together! Maybe (hypothetical at this point) Apple have locked themselves into an "Intel only" strategy for now, with the view to a review further down the road. I'm sure they (Apple) don't want to be in a similar position as they were in the old IBM days! Not that Intel is quite as stagnant as IBM in the server/desktop/market... But, and this was my biggest fear of the Intel move, was the constant releasing of new chips and new socket types from Intel - although this doesn't seem quite as frequent as it was in the past!
It's also quite clear that Apple are prepared to develop OS X for other platforms; not only did Marklar turn into the real "commercially released" deal of OS X for Intel, but I'm also of the understanding that the "fully featured mini-OS X" running on the iPhone/touch is powered by non-Intel chips, ie. Samsung (or is it ARM?).
Anyway, I for one feel the move to Intel was indeed the right move at the right time - OS X had been leading a double life and I'm so very pleased with my own Mac-Intel experiences... 😉
Don't forget Cell. It was a tri-venture (sp?). So you can blame Sony and Toshiba as well. Shoot as it is IBM is pimping Cell in blade servers for highly math dependent work.
I love AMD, and have over the years built a number of PCs based around the various iterations of their CPU lineup. However...
I would not buy an AMD-based laptop, since I really don't believe they're as suitable, particularly where power consumption comes into play. Now, I've been out of the loop for a while and things could certainly have changed, but my instinct at this point is to back Apple's move to Intel.
No matter what, now that they're in the x86 space, it technologically leaves them open to the possibility of using more-or-less any x86-compatible CPU. And, as someone upthread already pointed out, OS X in other guises works on PPC, ARM, and who knows what else. I don't see how any of this cross-CPU development is a bad thing for Apple. Frankly, the only other OS platform with any greater degree of architecture independence is Linux. Apple's long since passed up Microsoft on this score, and this clearly gives them a substantial advantage.
Intel produces CPUs in mega volume. They give very good discounts to volume purchasers. Now, that being said, you'll note Apple doesn't drop their computer model prices as component prices drop for Apple, and while this does stand in contrast to what happens with other PC makers -- and isn't in and of itself necessarily the best thing for us customers -- it also means Apple is now positioned to be a very strong, very profitable company, and will likely be so for a very long time.
EDIT: Regarding Cell, the problem with it is that it's more of a specialized CPU, rather than a generalized one, and I don't think it would be as suitable for regular computers as it is for gaming consoles or specialized servers. No, I think Apple did the wise thing in not developing the Mac platform around it. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn they have someone doing a Cell port, just to see if it can be done and how well it would work if it were done. In this business, you just never know...
I would not buy an AMD-based laptop, since I really don't believe they're as suitable, particularly where power consumption comes into play. Now, I've been out of the loop for a while and things could certainly have changed, but my instinct at this point is to back Apple's move to Intel.
No matter what, now that they're in the x86 space, it technologically leaves them open to the possibility of using more-or-less any x86-compatible CPU. And, as someone upthread already pointed out, OS X in other guises works on PPC, ARM, and who knows what else. I don't see how any of this cross-CPU development is a bad thing for Apple. Frankly, the only other OS platform with any greater degree of architecture independence is Linux. Apple's long since passed up Microsoft on this score, and this clearly gives them a substantial advantage.
Intel produces CPUs in mega volume. They give very good discounts to volume purchasers. Now, that being said, you'll note Apple doesn't drop their computer model prices as component prices drop for Apple, and while this does stand in contrast to what happens with other PC makers -- and isn't in and of itself necessarily the best thing for us customers -- it also means Apple is now positioned to be a very strong, very profitable company, and will likely be so for a very long time.
EDIT: Regarding Cell, the problem with it is that it's more of a specialized CPU, rather than a generalized one, and I don't think it would be as suitable for regular computers as it is for gaming consoles or specialized servers. No, I think Apple did the wise thing in not developing the Mac platform around it. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn they have someone doing a Cell port, just to see if it can be done and how well it would work if it were done. In this business, you just never know...
I am basing my views on Cells performance from the fine folks over at Beyond3D.com. They have people there that work with Cell more than the rest of us. They usually come back to Cell, when optimized to use the SPE's, can run tasks faster than poeple would think. And when code isn't optimized it runs the code about as fast as the fastest G4 (which can't be that bad).
Otherwise I do agree, until Core 2 came out AMD was actually faster at a slower clock rate than Intel. AMD was hoping Phenom would bring them back, but really it isn't doing all that well.
AMD has been hurting since the launch of Core 2. Even the cheapest Core 2 derived processors can be overclocked to ~3.0 GHz. The older 90 nm based Althon 64 X2 barely had anymore overhead to head beyond 3.0 GHz for stock components. The same can be said for the 65nm parts as well. AMD needs to work on their manufacturing processes and improve on clock speeds. I remember all the hope and hype that Phenom had but the yields and benchmarks are rather lacking.
ATi is what's holding the company together right now with the Radeon 3xxx Series. They're good components based off of the cool 55nm process. You're going to see them take over the laptop market this year.
ATi is what's holding the company together right now with the Radeon 3xxx Series. They're good components based off of the cool 55nm process. You're going to see them take over the laptop market this year.
I simply cannot fathom how you could possibly prefer to use XP over OSX. The only reason I can see to use XP or Vista is if there is some programs that you need that only run on Windows.
Sure, XP does what I want it to... It runs games, and Matlab. That doesn't mean I like it. I use it because I NEED it for some of the programs I require for Uni.
OK, I'm guessing you must be a new mac user. I cannot remember a single time my MBP has frozen when running OSX. On the other hand, when I am starting up XP using Boot Camp, it frequently just hangs. This means I have to do a force shutdown. And when I get it working, then comes the stupid popup balloons. I don't care if I have new updates, nor do I care if I have unused icons on my desktop, and I don't want to be told that my computer can't connect to the ethernet hub, or that no wireless networks are in range. Amazingly, I do have long enough memory span to remember that I did in fact plug in a USB storage device, and do not need to be reminded 3 or 4 times that I did so, five seconds after performing the act.
I hate XP because it treats you like an idiot, and then makes you feel like an idiot when you can't find what you need.
Yes, I am a fan of Apple and OSX. But to say I don't know what I'm talking about is just stupid. And I find your assumption that I have Rabies very offensive.
apple could not just standby while ibm decided to actually get with it. apple did the right thing by moving to the intel chip. macs are now the best pc on the planet thanks to the switch.
oh crap! i just looked at the date of this original thread. that's crazy!
oh crap! i just looked at the date of this original thread. that's crazy!
No...its just everyone knows that myth is only true when it favors Apple Computers!
You almost had a point...almost!
But when you said "decades" you shot yourself in the foot
Apple started using PPC chips in 1994, and stopped in 2006
Assuming PPC was always behind x86, thats at max 12 years. decades means at least 20 year...and since their was a time when PPC was faster then x86, that 12 years time isn't true.
All right, I'm gonna try and end this.
One arguement against me is based on the fact that I'm 15 and "haven't lived long enough to really get a feel for technology advances." This comment popped up because I said I'd like to keep my computers for 15 or 20 years.
Now, I'm 15. When I was born, Windows 95 wasn't out yet. My parents hadn't upgraded from DOS yet either. If technology advances stopped here, yeah, we'd all be stuck on Windows 3.1/System 6/OS/2 Me? I'd be fine with that. Computers with 30 MHz processors and 5 Mb of RAM? Fine, that's plenty to run the systems of the day. Point is, technology could and has advanced past that. People who used these computers didn't have a clue about what kind of computing the world of today has. And as a question to those people, Weren't you happy with what you had? Why did you need anything more? Answer that please.
This isn't the end just yet I know, so I'm going to watch this thread closely for a while.
I just finished a 46 hour render, running both cores at 100%, and I could still hear the clock ticking on the wall. Yeh...they made the right choice.