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

[kiang]

OP:
no it was the best move they could do. right now Intel makes the best CPUs for customers, and it will remain like that for a while. Indead the Power6 has much more power in it, but it's a chiup designed for industrial machines! not to stand in your living room. IBM doesn't make consumerchips, so don't compare their stuff to intel's.
The only competitor right now in AMD, but seen the Barcelona-benchmarks didn't give the expected results, Intel will keep it's leading position for a few months at least.
Intel is the best their is right now, so again: best move apple made in some time.

 

[Shadow]

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.

If people want to continue using the latest Mac OS X (which they might not, granted), they will eventually have to upgrade to an Intel Mac. Apple can't support for PowerPC forever. However, I do see them supporting it for atleast the next 3 OS revisions, as they sold PowerPC-based Macs as recently as last year; and looking at Apple's historical trends of support-cycles (G3 anyone?) they will support the PowerPC for a few more years.

Eventually though, they will drop support for it and if you want to use the latest version of Mac OS X, you will have to get an Intel Mac.

 

[Henri Gaudier]

Quote Shadow

Eventually though, they will drop support for it and if you want to use the latest version of Mac OS X, you will have to get an Intel Mac.

You mean Intel until they switch again!

 

[Shadow]

Quote Shadow

Eventually though, they will drop support for it and if you want to use the latest version of Mac OS X, you will have to get an Intel Mac.

You mean Intel until they switch again!

Aye. Thats assuming they're gonna switch again though...

 

[zephead]

They've only switched chip architectures, what, twice in 23 years? (I'm counting from the original Macintosh since I'm not sure what was in its predecesors)

68k > PPC > Intel x86

Something tells me they're not gonna be switching architectures again for quite a while.

 

[Shadow]

They've only switched chip architectures, what, twice in 23 years? (I'm counting from the original Macintosh since I'm not sure what was in its predecesors)

68k > PPC > Intel x86

Something tells me they're not gonna be switching architectures again for quite a while.

Well, generally speaking 68k and PowerPC lasted around a decade, so its logical to think that they will switch to something else (SPARC?) in about 10 years.

 

[flopticalcube]

Even in the same processor family, older CPUs get outdated. Try playing any recent PC games on a processor that doesn't have SSE2. Vista won't run on a 486. XP barely runs on them. Most software for PCs requires at least a P2 if not a P3. Apple doesn't even need to switch processor families to get their older ones outdated. Progress will do that for them.

 

[Henri Gaudier]

I'm grump. I switched from sequencing on an Atari to an iMac G3 600 having read for years about how you could run a virtual studio on a computer. Needless to say, I was rather underwhelmed by what could be achieved. So eventually I got a 9.2 system together and then WHAM OS X! All change. But then you can't have multiple out boxes and I'm back to 8 track. I get more money together I've got a G5, new software, more outboard gear. WHAM. Intel. More maintanance, waiting, hassles. I just want to work. Computers are not my thing. Music is. Computers and their maintanace are like burocracy, I just don't want it. So come on Apple/intel give me 50GHz and we'll call it a day. Our relationship is over. Oh and no breakdowns/bugs. Ever!

 

[gkarris]

Just look at sales.

Can now run native x86 OS's (Windows, Linux, etc.).

BTW: Intel is a brandname everyone knows, no one is really interested in an computer with an IBM processor (servers?) or a Motorola processor (cellphone company?)...

 

[scotty321]

Did Apple make the right move?

Considering that you CAN'T RUN WINDOWS NATIVELY on a PowerPC chip, the answer is a RESOUNDING YES! What a RIDICULOUS QUESTION to ask.

One of the primary reasons so many Windows users are switching to Mac is because of the Intel chip!

I mean, duh.

 

[gkhaldi]

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.

Never shut down??? Try like 12 times a year since microcode needs to be updated every week if you let them. And don't be fooled by the "concurrent updates". They don't work.

BTW, Power6 needs massive watercooling. That puts it basically out of reach for a desktop (unless it's severly clocked down).

PS: G5 and Power5 are NOT the same processor by lightyears.

 

[gkhaldi]

Did Apple make the right move?

Considering that you CAN'T RUN WINDOWS NATIVELY on a PowerPC chip, the answer is a RESOUNDING YES! What a RIDICULOUS QUESTION to ask.

One of the primary reasons so many Windows users are switching to Mac is because of the Intel chip!

I mean, duh.

Hmmm, I remeber back in 93-94 that Windows NT 3.51 did run on Digital ALPHA processors (similar in performance to the Power processors from IBM)

 

[markw10]

I say yes. Maybe this was a big jump but long term Intel will likely do better with upgrades. You don't know how long it'll be before another PowerPC update considering their past.
I wasn't with the Mac through the PowerPC years but I think the biggest advantage is Intel run Windows. I rarely use Windows but the switch has helped Apple a lot.

 

[yzp]

apple did the right move in m y opinion... anyway, POWER is for mid to hi-end server.........

 

[Digital Skunk]

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

YUP! My G4 Powerbook running at 1.8 GHz and burning a hole in my leg would have been wonderful.

 

[longofest]

I also think that the intel switch has helped a lot.

the main reason why we're asking this question on the front page is that the question seemed to be getting a lot of attention in the forum. And after all, the POWER6's performance IS very, very promising.

However, note the caviats that I said in the post. Plus you get inherent benefits of going to x86 (windows compatibilty for those who want/need it).

EDIT: still waiting for people to start flaming me for insinuating that the XServe isn't a high end server

 

[Digital Skunk]

I'm grump. I switched from sequencing on an Atari to an iMac G3 600 having read for years about how you could run a virtual studio on a computer. Needless to say, I was rather underwhelmed by what could be achieved. So eventually I got a 9.2 system together and then WHAM OS X! All change. But then you can't have multiple out boxes and I'm back to 8 track. I get more money together I've got a G5, new software, more outboard gear. WHAM. Intel. More maintanance, waiting, hassles. I just want to work. Computers are not my thing. Music is. Computers and their maintanace are like burocracy, I just don't want it. So come on Apple/intel give me 50GHz and we'll call it a day. Our relationship is over. Oh and no breakdowns/bugs. Ever!

And no more freaking beach ball, spinning pin wheely things either. Don't even program it in the OS.

 

[Squonk]

Absolutely the right move (going to Intel) and not a moment too soon.

EDIT: So, do you think apple is keeping secret PPC builds of all OS and applications on a Frankenstein Power6 based machine? You know, just in case in another 5 years.... he he he

 

[cr2sh]

The grass is always greener...

Eff IBM, the macintosh languished for years after the G3. The modest bumps, overclocked G4s and pathetic development time. Intel is the king right now, Apple made the right move... and we're all better off today because of it.

 

[Mac-Addict]

Intel will catch up but most of the new switchers switched because they know if they don't like Mac OS X then they can just boot into Windows and get over it. Apple made the right move, IBM couldnt provide a chip for them to fit in their notebooks.

 

[reno]

Universal Binary

most apps now are universal binaries, so i imagine OS X and apps written for it can be run on either Intel or PowerPC ... so Apple can switch processors (or mix them) whenever they like, couldn't they?

 

[Evangelion]

Yes Apple made the right move! Consider this:

a) This uber-fast CPU that has just been unveiled, the CPU that has been breaking all these speed-records.... It's a VERY expensive hi-end CPU! The CPU Apple would have used would be significantly cheaper version of this CPU, with less impressive specs!

b) And even if this "G6" was the fastest CPU in the globe right now.... Are we forgetting the fact that for quite some time already Intel has ruled to roost? Are we going to get our panties in a bunch every time IBM takes the performance-crown and proclaim "If Apple hadn't switched to Intel, we would be using this CPU!", while forgetting that for several years before this miracle-CPU we would have been using CPU's that were getting creamed by Intel!

c) Could you put this CPU in a laptop?

d) Boot-camp anyone?

Yes, I fully expect that IBM (or Freescale, or Sun or AMD, or someone else) is going to release a CPU that is faster than what Intel is offering at that moment. But does that automatically mean that switching to Intel was a dumb move? No it does not. We need to look at the big picture, instead of staring one particular CPU at one particular moment in time. Yes, POWER6 is a very impressive CPU. Will it be that impressive one year from now? Could it be used in a laptop? How much does it cost? Would the low-cost Apple-version of POWER6 be as impressive as this monster-CPU is?

 

[thejadedmonkey]

I can see Apple's high end video editing hardware using the fastest CPU's around. if it's a POWER6, that's a PPC chip, right? so it'll run native anyway, since it's all UB format now. I don't think it makes a difference, you can have Intel in the consumer stuff and keep PPC in pro equipment for all I (or anyone else) cares.

 

[Squonk]

Hmmm, I remeber back in 93-94 that Windows NT 3.51 did run on Digital ALPHA processors (similar in performance to the Power processors from IBM)

You are correct. In fact, 3.51 ran on: DEC Alpha, X86 and PowerPC! I used to support 3.51 servers for a printing company on DEC Alpha's. They ruled back then. It seriously kicked the x86's of the day. And they cost an incredible amount of money too.

/off-topic comment

 

[pgwalsh]

Switching to Intel processors saved their personal computer business. It also opened their potential customer base with boot camp. IBM failed Apple by focusing on the CELL, console and server markets.