Did Apple Do The Right Thing in Moving To Intel From PowerPC???

[Roba]

This article is quite interesting although i do think that some of the test results maybe a little of though.
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

But isn't it true that a 2Ghz Core Duo is quicker than a high end 3.6Ghz Pentium 4 or something? And that a 2Ghz Core Duo is about as fast as a 2Ghz Dual G5?

Therefore Apple wasn't lying to us much (though I'm sure they exaggerated the benchmarks), it's just the Core Chips are amazing compared to what was available before.

 

[ezekielrage_99]

Does that mean you don't want any speed increases in the future?

I personally think it would be awesome to have that much performance available in a desktop computer.

I was just saying that for what I am doing with my Mac at the moment I couldn't justify the amount of money for a product like that, plus I can do everything that I want with my current Intel CPU.

I never said anything about the Intel roadmap, insane CPU grunt for a consumer or not wanting speed bumps but I do think the issue with this thread is confussing a high end product with a consumer product, the high end will win out everytime in terms of speed and features.

It's a matter of need vs wants and what is a consumer practical device which the Power6 isn't and remember the G5 was just a cut down version of the Power4 which means there were features taken out for the consumer market even though the G5 was considered to be a professional computer.

 

[spydr]

You will _never_ find POWER6 in any machine that sells for under $10,000. They are aimed at a completely different market.

That makes me feel better. I feel even a well appointed Mac Pro is for a completely different market than what my budget would allow me.

 

[thunng8]

That makes me feel better. I feel even a well appointed Mac Pro is for a completely different market than what my budget would allow me.

I have said it before:

Nope, you will find POWER6 in machines under 5k. IBM have stated that POWER6 will power servers from Blades to Ultra high end. Anyway, there are POWER5+ servers costing ~4k and POWER6 will replace the entire POWER5+ range.

 

[thunng8]

But isn't it true that a 2Ghz Core Duo is quicker than a high end 3.6Ghz Pentium 4 or something? And that a 2Ghz Core Duo is about as fast as a 2Ghz Dual G5?

Therefore Apple wasn't lying to us much (though I'm sure they exaggerated the benchmarks), it's just the Core Chips are amazing compared to what was available before.

A look at spec_rate numbers suggests that POWER6 is a multithreading monster:

http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/p/hardware/midrange/570m/perfdata.html

8 core SPEC CPU2006 INT Rates
240 ___ IBM: 4.7Ghz POWER6
108 ___ HP: 3 GHz AMD Opteron 8222SE, DDR2 667
102 ___ HP: 1.6GHz/24MB Dual-Core, Intel Itanium 2
91.2 ___ Fujitsu Siemens: 2.66 GHz Intel QC Xeon processor X5355, FSB 1.333
81.6 ___ Sun: 2.15 GHz SPARC VI (Fujitsu)

8 core SPEC CPU2006 FP Rates
213 ___ IBM: 4.7Ghz POWER6
98.7 ___ HP: 3 GHz AMD Opteron 8222SE, DDR2 667
90.8 ___ HP: 1.6GHz/18MB Dual-Core, Intel Itanium 2
70.9 ___ Sun: 2.15 GHz SPARC VI (Fujitsu)
60.9 ___ Fujitsu Siemens: 2.66 GHz Intel QC Xeon processor X5355, FSB 1.333
58.2 ___ Bull: 3.4 GHz Intel Tulsa, FSB 800, 16MB L3

The 3Ghz MacPro OctoCore would a bit faster than the Fujitsu Siemens: 2.66 GHz Intel QC score

In fact, even a 4core POWER6 would handily beat the MacPro. Look at the abysmal specfp_rate score for Core2 Xeons due to severe memory bandwidth limitations of that architecture.

 

[SkyBell]

Maybe I can offer a different perspective.

The world of computers is very dynamic and is constantly changing.

Eons ago, read 30 years, memory was measured in Kilobytes, with 16 being a huge amount. What we could do with computers back then, which was very cool at the time, would now be considered very limited.

There was no gigahertz myth back then. Heck there wasn't even a megahertz myth! CPU speeds were sub megahertz back then!

As the capabilities of the hardware grew, so did the applications that could run on the hardware that was available. What is now common was not even attainable back then.

To give an example, take a look at the Grapher application that comes with Mac OS X. In a matter of seconds I can graph a 3D object and then change the variables/equation and see the new result in a matter of seconds. This is awesome power for those who can use it. Back in 1977, I saw a mini computer that could barely draw a 2D chart that produced a single curved line as the output. You could actually watch each data point being plotted (drawn). Yes, it took a long time to plot this simple 2D line.

My point is while the computers of today can do well with what we currently have and use software wise, who knows what will be available 10 or 20 years down the road.

That is why computer hardware will continue to evolve and improve over time. So while what you have works for you now, who knows what you will want to do in the future as new application ideas come to fruition.

Ah yes, very good points indeed. The world of computers is changing, but why should it? I for one, believe that most of us would be happy with what we have, and we don't need anything better.

Ridiculous! And palpable nonsense.

If Apple hadn't gone to Intel, I, for one, would never have been tempted to try out a Mac mini and then (eight months later) splash out on a top-of-the-line Mac Pro. Various PC makers would have got my money instead. Compared to PCs of the day, late-era PowerPC-equipped Macs were a joke. I would never even have considered purchasing one. Apple was stuck in a rut, going nowhere. Intel has pushed Apple into the 21st century. Without Intel, Apple would be nowhere, or disproportionately reliant on iPod to survive. There would be no Apple TV. Can you imagine a G5 in one of those?

What possible advantage would Apple have got by sticking with PPC? Their laptop offerings would be laughable, compared to Merom. The PowerMac, assuming it got any upgrades at all, would be stuck with little scope for expansion and a massive cooling system that took up half the case. People on here would still be posting in pathetic "G5 PowerBooks next Tuesday !!!!1111ONEONEELEVEN" threads, hoping, against all hope, that Apple would launch a portable with a CPU that was something approaching half-decent.

Your computing needs must be something quite extraordinary if you're happy with a 800Mhz iBook and a 1.8Ghz Mac mini. You're like the Japanese soldiers found after the war, who found it difficult to accept that it was all over. My incredulity knows no bounds.

I'm not proposing that only Apple stop development, but the industry as a whole. I am perfectly happy with my mini and iBook. I do internet, chatting, email, light video and audio editing, games, etc. with these machines. The pro's have thier top end Macs and PC's. Well, you don't see them struggleing with thier work with current teachnology, do you? They seem to be doing great.

So why keep going? If we are happy with what we have, we shouldn't keep trying to get bigger and better stuff.

That is a very very closed minded view.....those Mac might be fast enough, but why not get faster one? Not to mention software that will need more power. Then there are other people who use Apple computers too. You honestly we should all stay with old Macs from the early 2000s?

As for 3Ghz being all the consumer needs...I kind of lost respect for your ideas about computer speed. Basicly anyone who works with computers knows that 3Ghz alone isn't a very good measurement of true speed. Is P4 3Ghz enough, or Xeon 8 Core 3Ghz. Big difference.

Why shouldn't we? Because we shouldn't have to. With evolving software, yes, we do need faster computers with more speed, memory and space.

But what if these was no new software? We basically have all the software we need. Better, instead of trying to make software that needs more power, how about we make software for what we have already?

You're kidding me. Some of us actually do real work with our macs, not just update our myspace profiles and browse the web all day.

Hmmm... I'm a 14 year old girl who has about 1,800 posts on a Mac forum. I'm pretty sure I have better things to do then that. Yes, you do real work on your mac. Well, it seems to be going pretty well, right? Why do you need more power?

 

[zap2]

We basically have all the software we need.

I think you should stop talking now....that is very very ignorant. Computer still can evolve into new places...I'm not sure why you would want that to stop!

Better, instead of trying to make software that needs more power, how about we make software for what we have already?

Why not both? I'm sure people would love software that does new things, and runs faster because of new hardware. And if you think everyone currently using a computer has all the speed they need...you really need to look around. They are people, although not tons of them, who need more power then anything out their can give them. Not to mention normal people, who just want faster apps!

Well, it seems to be going pretty well, right? Why do you need more power?

Come off it...this is one of the worst idea EVER. How can you honestly believe this, your either screwing with us(which I don't think you are) or are just ignorant about the computer world. Or very egotistical to not care about any other computer owner

 

[RedTomato]

The pro's have thier top end Macs and PC's. Well, you don't see them struggling with thier work with current technology, do you? They seem to be doing great.

Well, yes they do, they just work around it. A top of the range mac pro struggles with rendering HD video. I think for Shrek, each frame of the film took a full day to render on their massive cluster of about 200 high end PCs.

More power lets you explore more options, instead of making a small change, then having to wait 2 hours to see the results.

So why keep going? If we are happy with what we have, we shouldn't keep trying to get bigger and better stuff.

I do sort of agree. Current home computers are easily enough for current light video work and emailing. However, video work wasn't possible with home computers 15 years ago, and in 15 years time, people will have different expectations from their machines.

Future computers will move towards easier to use interfaces (speech recognition, full 3D avatars, HD video work etc) which most people will find easier to use than the current antiquated keyboard/mouse combo. For that reason alone, a lot more processing power than currently available is needed.

I remember when the first 1GHZ pentiums were released, many years ago. People were AMAZED at the power of these machines. There were posts from people saying 'How could all that power be useful?' At that time, video editing on a home PC was just a dream, that cost a lot of money and time to make happen, in rather poor quality.

Today? You, a 14 year old, are editing high quality DV video easily on your small laptop. Tomorrow - who know?

Hmmm... I'm a 14 year old girl who has about 1,800 posts on a Mac forum. I'm pretty sure I have better things to do then that. Yes, you do real work on your mac. Well, it seems to be going pretty well, right? Why do you need more power?

Admit it people. Cassie owns you all

 

[DarrenSW]

Looking from a lowly but real world perspective, my MacBook does things that my iBook could only have dreamed of (and, even if it were based on present Freescale offerings, still could only dream of), at the same price. I'd say that makes the Intel move a good one.

 

[sushi]

Ah yes, very good points indeed. The world of computers is changing, but why should it? I for one, believe that most of us would be happy with what we have, and we don't need anything better.
<snip>

Part of this is because once you've used a better computer it is hard to go back to a more limited environment.

Sure I can use Word Perfect for DOS (which as a nice program for sure) but why would I if I could use a GUI oriented word processing application instead? The GUI word processor is so much easier to use.

One thing that plagues software today is bloatware. IMHO, true programming occurs at the assembly language level. Very few applications are created that way these days. Most use some sort of high level object oriented approach. There are benefits and limitations from going this route. The big benefit is that software can be developed quickly. The big limitation is that usually the applications created this way are huge and require large libraries to run.

A long time ago I wrote a converter type application. My goal along with allowing for easy measurement conversions was also to make it grammatically correct. So if I converted inches into feet, if I entered 12 inches I wanted the conversion to read 1 foot and not 1 feet. It took a bit of extra code to do this but was a fun exercise in logic.

I wrote the application in both procedural and object oriented languages. The procedural compile was about 100K. The object compile was about 12 times that large. This is the inherent issue of programming in object oriented languages. I calculated that if I had done the code in assembly language, it would have been around 50K -- and probably would run faster as well.

Here is another example. Take the the word processing application called FullWrite Professional created by Aston Tate in the late 80's. It was purchased and updated by a company call Akimbo Systems in 1996 and runs under Classic mode. It comes on 4 floppy discs, of which two contain the Dictionary and Thesaurus. Installed it occupies 4.5 MB of disc space. Yet it can do most of what the current version of Microsoft Word can do. Sure there are some limitations, but for the most part it has very similar capabilities -- and in many cases is easier to use those capabilities.

So it would be nice if companies created better software that was more optimized for the current hardware that is available. It would certainly give a boost in performance.

You mentioned that the pro's are not struggling with their work based upon current technology. But in fact they are. For example, if it takes a minute to render a movie via the current hardware/software combination, then faster hardware/software would be welcomed that would allow the pro to accomplish the same task at hand but at a fraction of that time. This would enable them to be more productive and effective at producing their products.

Bottom line, is that more capable hardware allows for more sophisticated software to be created that takes advantage of the new hardware.

Heck right now, I wish that I could watch movies downloaded from iTMS on my older PowerMac G4. It needs a bit more power to do this -- at least for the movies that I have DL'ed. They barely play in a small window. And forget about trying to play them at full screen. When I purchased this particular computer, I never envisioned watching a movie on my computer. Now with iTMS movie downloads available, I want to be able to do this. I will need new hardware to be able to solve my need...a need that did not exist a couple of years ago.

This is the point that many are trying to make. Many times we are happy with what we have because we don't know what we _could_ have. However, once we do, we now want more power and capabilities.

I hope this makes sense.

And yes, sometimes I hear what you are saying especially when it comes to cell phones. Over here in Japan, you can get so many features of which very few use or really need but are just cool to have. Me, I just want to make and receive calls.

Anyhow, enjoying the debate with you. Keep it coming!

 

[cubist]

The right thing in some ways...

Transitioning to Intel was a good thing in many ways. But imo Apple made a seriously bad move in not supporting Classic apps on the Intel boxes. There are many Classic apps which will never be available as UBs. For that reason I cannot and will not buy an Intel Mac.

 

[sushi]

Transitioning to Intel was a good thing in many ways. But imo Apple made a seriously bad move in not supporting Classic apps on the Intel boxes. There are many Classic apps which will never be available as UBs. For that reason I cannot and will not buy an Intel Mac.

Man you hit the nail on the head for me.

I would have a 24 inch iMac and a MBP 15 inch right now if this were true.

I still use my Classic apps and do not plan on changing any time soon, unless I can run my Classic apps on an Intel Mac. There is one emulator out there that I haven't tried. Forget the name. One of these days I will give it a try and see. I would much prefer an Apple solution in this case.

 

[failsafe1]

Man you hit the nail on the head for me.

I would have a 24 inch iMac and a MBP 15 inch right now if this were true.

I still use my Classic apps and do not plan on changing any time soon, unless I can run my Classic apps on an Intel Mac. There is one emulator out there that I haven't tried. Forget the name. One of these days I will give it a try and see. I would much prefer an Apple solution in this case.

Interesting statement. What classic apps do you still have to have? I am curious. For me the Intel switch was great. We would not see this new PPC processor in any machine I would use. I like having Windows on the same machine when I have to have it. I am watching some WMV files now as I type on my MBP. Having frequent updates are nice also. I wondered if it would be a good move but now looks like the only move.

 

[pengu]

um. ok so you want them to not only provide a seamless way to emulate a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU ARCHITECTURE, you also want to run a VIRTUALISED legacy OS with said emulated CPU.

why should they spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars developing/supporting this?

what apps do you use, that are not available (or a comparable app) for OSX??

 

[pengu]

The pro's have thier top end Macs and PC's. Well, you don't see them struggleing with thier work with current teachnology, do you? They seem to be doing great.

Well, it seems to be going pretty well, right? Why do you need more power?

tell ya what. you hire 5 contract programmers, at $hundreds/hour and tell me the technology is fast enough, while they are surfing digg.com for several hours a week while an application is compiled.

 

[sushi]

Interesting statement. What classic apps do you still have to have? I am curious.

um. ok so you want them to not only provide a seamless way to emulate a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CPU ARCHITECTURE, you also want to run a VIRTUALISED legacy OS with said emulated CPU.

why should they spend the hundreds of thousands of dollars developing/supporting this?

what apps do you use, that are not available (or a comparable app) for OSX??

To answer you both, there are applications that I prefer that run under Mac OS 9. Others on this board are the same.

The reason that I mentioned Apple, is that they are kings when it comes to emulation. Of course it would cost them $ -- and I would gladly pay.

That is probably why a third party solution will be the only viable alternative should that happen.

Note, I am not saying the switch to Intel is bad. In fact I have an Intel iMac. I have Windows running on it via Boot Camp and Parallels.

However, I still use my older Classic capable machines to run some software that I prefer.

 

[johnee]

Hi Cube! Yes, of course ... I read that in the OP's link but completely forgot about it when I asked who they were aimed at. I was more wondering if anyone would adopt them outside of the largely faceless server environment and we'd see them in the shops.

no, and the reason is the cost. The P6 like all IBM POWER processors are high end for RAS reasons (reliability, accessibility, and serviceability). These processors need to be stable for months on end without the system being rebooted. typically these processors get clustered into anywhere from 2 to 64 way machines, with the large N-way systems never being shutdown (well, maybe once a year).

The processors basically can perform some self analysis and determine if it should be taken off line or reset.

They're not your typical processor because they're not meant for typical work. They are used to create internet backbones and highly complex mathematical computations which take many months to solve.

 

[pengu]

To answer you both, there are applications that I prefer that run under Mac OS 9. Others on this board are the same.

well actually that didnt answer anything. we already knew you wanted to run apps under classic. we asked which ones.

The reason that I mentioned Apple, is that they are kings when it comes to emulation. Of course it would cost them $ -- and I would gladly pay.

but anything you want like that is integrated with the OS, and hence we would all pay. no thanks.

also, apple are usually the "first" to drop support for old software/os. microsoft is still maintaining compatibility with windows 98 (possibly even some '95 apps) nearly 10 years on, and Office always installs on previous releases of windows.

MS also have huge amounts of code in windows that are so old its ridiculous, because they want such backward compatibility.

 

[harveypooka]

If they hadn't switched we'd still be seeing 'G5 Powerbook next Tuesday' threads!

I agree. It was a shock to all of us when Steve announced that we were sleeping with the devil, but it's given a lot more clout to the Mac platform. Being able to run Windows, either through BootCamp or Parallels, is a massive plus and it puts to bed the "you can't compare a Mac and PC" crap - because now you can!

 

[zap2]

Transitioning to Intel was a good thing in many ways. But imo Apple made a seriously bad move in not supporting Classic apps on the Intel boxes. There are many Classic apps which will never be available as UBs. For that reason I cannot and will not buy an Intel Mac.

Man you hit the nail on the head for me.

I would have a 24 inch iMac and a MBP 15 inch right now if this were true.

I still use my Classic apps and do not plan on changing any time soon, unless I can run my Classic apps on an Intel Mac. There is one emulator out there that I haven't tried. Forget the name. One of these days I will give it a try and see. I would much prefer an Apple solution in this case.

I feel bad for you guys, but really Classic App are old...Apple made a big leap to OS X, and I'm willing to take the lose of some App, for the massive advantages over OS X+Intel. How long is Apple to support OS 9? They had to drop it one day, why not now?

 

[72930]

I feel bad for you guys, but really Classic App are old...Apple made a big leap to OS X, and I'm willing to take the lose of some App, for the massive advantages over OS X+Intel. How long is Apple to support OS 9? They had to drop it one day, why not now?

Sheepshaver lets you run OS9 on intel mac hardware...I don't really want it, but built in OS9 support might have helped my grandad who has a scanner which has drivers for Windows and OS9

 

[sushi]

I feel bad for you guys, but really Classic App are old...Apple made a big leap to OS X, and I'm willing to take the lose of some App, for the massive advantages over OS X+Intel. How long is Apple to support OS 9? They had to drop it one day, why not now?

Don't feel bad for me. I have plenty of older computers to run Classic or Mac OS 9 natively. So no problem here.

Note, I am not angry that Apple dropped support for Classic. I expected it to happen with the transition to Intel Macs. Apple supported Classic through Tiger and PPC Macs so that is good.

Additionally, I have an Intel iMac that has both Mac OS and Windows XP running fine.

If the Intel Macs support Classic I would be more inclined to upgrade my hardware sooner by replacing/upgrading my laptop and primary desktop computer. But why should I when my older Macs work fine and do what I need them to do? In the meantime, I will enjoy using the Intel iMac.

In the meantime there are apps like Sheepsaver that show promise for those of use who still want to use Classic.

Oh, and I run FullWrite Professional, Claris Emailer, scanner software (no Mac OX X version) and a whole bunch of other productivity software and even some games. So yes, I still use Classic or Mac OS 9 directly a lot. I also use Mac OS X and Winders! Usually I have around 5 computers (Mac and PCs) running in my computer room. The more the better!

 

[SkyBell]

I think you should stop talking now....that is very very ignorant. Computer still can evolve into new places...I'm not sure why you would want that to stop!

Ignorant? How is that ignorant? Selfish, maybe...

Sure, they can evolve. Anything can evolve. But do we really want it to? I do believe that the software and hardware we have does us pretty good. All this talk of touch-screen's and voice activated commands isn't helping me believe otherwise, because many of us prefer more "archaic" means of input.

Why would I want it to stop? I'm the kind of person who likes to keep her computers for a good 15 or 20 years before upgrading.

Why not both? I'm sure people would love software that does new things, and runs faster because of new hardware. And if you think everyone currently using a computer has all the speed they need...you really need to look around. They are people, although not tons of them, who need more power then anything out their can give them. Not to mention normal people, who just want faster apps!

I do realize the pro's need more power. But once they get the amount they need, that should be the limit. Who actually needs more then they have?(Of course it's ok if you realized you need a Mac Pro after buying an iMac, thats fine.) If software development focused on utilizing what power people already have, instead of forcing them to upgrade to use the software, the answer would be next to no one.

 

[harveypooka]

I feel bad for you guys, but really Classic App are old...Apple made a big leap to OS X, and I'm willing to take the lose of some App, for the massive advantages over OS X+Intel. How long is Apple to support OS 9? They had to drop it one day, why not now?

What Classic apps are people using? Maybe we can suggest some alternatives?

 

[sushi]

What Classic apps are people using? Maybe we can suggest some alternatives?

Thanks for the offer.

But most of us who still use Classic apps do so for a reason and/or preference. In other words, we've probably tried new alternatives but decided that we liked the Classic versions better.

And that is why we choose to continue to use Classic apps.