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

[commander.data]

I really don't see how IBM releasing the Power6 has anything to do with making Apple's switch to Intel look bad. Unless there was plans for an extremely cut down consumer derivative, which I don't think there ever were, then they are in completely unrelated markets. Power6 doesn't compete with the Core 2 Duo, it doesn't compete with the Core 2 Quad, it doesn't compete with Xeon DPs, it doesn't even compete with Xeon MPs (that Apple doesn't even use). The Power6 competes with the Itanium which is a product segment that even Apple's widest server expansion dreams probably never want to touch.

Besides, Power6 is likely exactly the reason why Apple had to switch to Intel. Between Power6 and the in-order PPC chips IBM was designing for the XBox360 and PS3 (and no those console chips have very little application in a Mac), IBM was spending all their resources in other areas and ignoring Apple. If Apple had stuck with PPC, there wouldn't have been a consumer Power6 derivative until 2008/2009 assuming Apple's begging would have any effect. Even if a cut-down Power6 could best Intel's ever improving Nehalem and 32nm Gesher shrink, Apple's market would have stagmated so much in the intervening 3 years that they likely wouldn't have anyone to sell it to.

 

[2ndPath]

I think Apple did the right move. IBM presents this new CPU which probably is very fast. But this was never the problem. The problem was that IBM's CPUs were mostly optimzed for servers as that is IBMs main application for them. Adopting the CPUs to be usable in Macs is a lot of work which equals cost. Even AMD has to struggle to keep up with Intel in energy efficiency. And AMD's CPU market share of PC's is a few times bigger than IBM's would be with CPUs in Macs. So to get to the same level of efficiency on PPCs as Intel achieved, a lot more R&D money would be necessary, which would make the individual chips and thus the computers much more expensive.

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.)

There are technical and scientific applications which would benefit from orders of magnitude more performance than there is available today. We are nowhere close to enough. And many of these things are already highly optimzed from the software side.

 

[arkmannj]

leapfrog

It's the processor game of leapfrog. even If the power6 could be put into a mac desktop (and laptops for that matter) at decent prices, Apple's move was a good one. It provides better marketing for switchers
(no more explaining why the MHz were so different, and trying to equate this processor speed to that one. and the fact that switchers can use their windows apps if the want to is a big deal)
Intel makes a good processor, at a decent price it just makes good sense for right now. (the only thing I'm bothered by since the Intel switch is the integrated graphics cards)

With that said, I'm sure somewhere in a hidden dungeon there is a version of Mac OS X running on a Power6. I expect that Apple has OS X being maintananced for several architectures (Intel-x86, AMD-x86, SPARC, Power5, and so on)

Does anyone know of a sort of Virtual PC for Intel macs that can emulate a G3/G4 to run some old favorite classic apps (*cough* games *cough*) ?
I'd gladly pay for it.

 

[Cromulent]

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.

When you are paying someone £100's/hour and they have to wait for 1 minute for something to finish that is at the very least £10 down the drain probably more like £20. Wasted. Because the hardware is not fast enough, now imagine that happening as much as it does with computers your throwing away £1000's a month just because the hardware is not fast enough.

There is no limit to the speed of computers that professionals need.

I would have thought that Luddites would have died out about 200 years ago, I guess not.

For those who don't know what a luddite is :

This English historical movement has to be seen in its context of the harsh economic climate due to the Napoleonic Wars; but since then, the term Luddite has been used to describe anyone opposed to technological progress and technological change. For the modern movement of opposition to technology, see neo-luddism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddites

 

[0098386]

I'd say they made the right move. I can dual boot into Windows making any new Mac just oh-so flexible. Lower price tag helps too, I doubt any machine with one of these Power6 CPUs is going to have a friendly price attached to it.

 

[surferfromuk]

PPC is a niche chip - and now a postscript in Apple's history.

Even more so now that they no longer have Apple as a customer.

Using it in macs only contributed to the idea that mac was just TOO different.

Intel is known by the man on the street as 'the chip inside computers'.

The mindshare of this understanding has incredible capital value for Apple.

 

[fall3n]

The bottom line is that when Apple was with IBM nothing was advancing for them, we sat at G4 laptops and G5 desktops for what seems like forever and after the switch to Intel there has been more and more updates and upgrades then Apple has ever seen. Some may argue this as being an annoyance as you never really have the best, but from a business perspective, you can't get it any better. The consumer demand for Apple products has risen ten fold ever since they switched to Intel. It was definitely the right thing for Apple to do and has been proven so in their financial statements.

 

[cuasatermos]

Apple could use both architectures

I think that all of you that says that Intel do the right thing it's because you are a new mac users or windows/mac users.....

I've read that so much users says that it's for the possibility of use windows... who needs windows?

I've read that it's for the periodic updates of intel... updates? = quality? not neccesarily...

I've read that intel is more cheap.... cheap = quality?

In my opinion, I think that PowerPC architecture is better, RISC obtain a better perfomance with a simple hardware.

Apple could use both architectures and get to users the posibility of adquire the computer that agrees more to them

Greetings.

P.D. I agree with surferfromuk. Think different.

 

[edoates]

P5? P6? G5? Woodcrest? Who cares!

One of the many nice things about using a Unix base is that it is PORTABLE. Other than for contractual reasons, Apple could decide to once again port OS X to another processor base. So if there is a compelling business reason, OS X will wind up on other processors types as well.

For right now, My MacTel 2.66 Quad is snappier than my G5 Quad. But I use them for different things (ProTools HD/TDM for the Intel, Final Cut Studio for the G5), and they both excel at those applications.

See, the point is: APPLICATIONS. If all you do is to cruise the web and read email, you don't need much processor speed; if you have CPU/Disk intensive apps to run, you need serious computing hardware. And Apple is well positioned with OS X to adopt whatever processor architecture (or more than one simultaneously) is needed to further their business.

So do they regret going to Intel? I think not right now, but it was not a permanent decision.

Ed

 

[commander.data]

Maintaining two different architectures is likely too difficult and expensive. They would have to split suppliers and order lower volumes which adds cost. And they would have to have maintain two separate hardware design teams to come up with new products. Plus, it'll probably send the marketing people in a tailspin. "Our high end PPC products crush Intel chips, but not too much becuase we sell Intels in our mainstream products. And all our products own PCs because we have better design and OS X."

 

[4God]

Well, my wife and I have owned a G4 Mini and 4 PowerMac G5's at various
configs. I must tell you that now we own an Intel 20" iMac CoreDuo and
a 2.66 MacPro and we couldn't be happier. What a huge difference! My
wife works with photos on the iMac and I do audio/video work with Final Cut Studio
and Pro Tools as well as podcasting and web stuff on the MacPro. These babies fly. I know
we'll never look back, that's for sure.

 

[Clive At Five]

Okay, first of all, the POWER6 would be a G7, not a G6 (POWER4 was the G5).

Now, also remember the difficulty Apple had with putting the G5 into a laptop? That's because the POWER chips were never meant to run in consumer machines. They are not energy conscious enough. It took enough fanagling with IBM to get them to make low-powered variants... and even then they sucked. Apple hasn't had a long-battery-life'd laptop since the Clamshell... which was a G3... and more consumer-based.

If we were still using the POWER chips, the desktops would be really fast, yes... but water-cooled. The laptops would ALWAYS be a generation behind the desktop. That doesn't look good in a product line-up.

It was definitely better for Apple to take the speed sacrifice in the desktops to gain speed in the laptops. Laptops are the future anyway. In 5 years anyone with a lug of a computer on his or her desk will be laughed at. Thus there would be no laptop-based future for Apple on the POWER chips.

Good riddance, anyway.

-Clive

 

[kalisphoenix]

Who actually needs more then they have?

Why not have more than you need? So long as it's not depriving anyone else of their ability to own a computer, why not?

As technology progresses, older and weaker computers are discarded in favor of newer machines. This enables people with less disposable income to purchase a computer and join the vast numbers of idiots spouting all over internet forums anywhere. Which is ostensibly a good thing.

If technology were restrained by government or collective action through false limitations... I don't think I need to finish that thought, do I?

 

[cwkoller5]

Why Can't MacOS do Both?

If the same skunkworks mentality guided Steve to keep MacOSX(OpenStep) parity on Intel all these years, then why can't they keep parity on Power now that Intel has become the CPU of choice? Seems like a cheap insurance policy, and a differentiator over Windows.

They may even be able to offer a special MacOSX Server product for Power architecture that interfaces quite nicely with Intel Mac workstations. Now that IBM is out of the PC business, could be a sweet match.

 

[gnasher729]

Very helpful. Cheers for the pointer.

Does anyone know who will be adopting these G6's? I mean, who are they aimed at?

They are not "G6"s.

The G5 was a cut-down derivative of POWER4, suitable for use in a desktop machine. IBMs next generation was POWER5, but there was never a desktop version of it. POWER6 is two generations further, so you would have to wait for IBM to make a low-cost version of it, and that would be a G7.

 

[fall3n]

I think that all of you that says that Intel do the right thing it's because you are a new mac users or windows/mac users.....

I've read that so much users says that it's for the possibility of use windows... who needs windows?

I've read that it's for the periodic updates of intel... updates? = quality? not neccesarily...

I've read that intel is more cheap.... cheap = quality?

In my opinion, I think that PowerPC architecture is better, RISC obtain a better perfomance with a simple hardware.

Apple could use both architectures and get to users the posibility of adquire the computer that agrees more to them

Greetings.

P.D. I agree with surferfromuk. Think different.

The fact of the matter isn't whether or not the move to Intel was good for YOU, but was it good for APPLE. Which it was as they have never been so successful. I think your comments are just naive, to assume that everyone that supports the Intel move are new users is ridiculous. I for one am not a new Mac user or a windows/mac user, however I can see the value of having a windows/mac capable machine as about 90% of the world still uses Windows. Pretty much every business out there uses Windows or Windows based software that they need and require. This allows those consumers to use a system that they love (Mac), but still have the freedom of using the software that they require to run their business.

As for updates = quality. Perhaps not, but updates = progression. Apple sat at a stand still with IBM for ages. Not good for business when your in a business that relies on sales.

Intel is cheaper because there is a higher amount of processors being produced as the demand for their processors is higher then anyone else's. When they do this they produce in large bulk amounts which lowers prices. They aren't cheap because they are made cheaply.

 

[commander.data]

Apple hasn't had a long-battery-life'd laptop since the Clamshell... which was a G3... and more consumer-based.

I always found it ironic that the G4s languished on a 167MB FSB, while the last G3 used by Apple in the iBook, the 750FX was capable of using a 200MHz FSB even though Apple didn't clock it that high, probably for marketing reasons. I wonder what would have happened if Apple stuck with the G3 a little longer and added SIMD capabilities like Gekko and Broadway that Nintendo uses which are G3's with their FPU capable to SIMD. It would have been power efficient anyways, and with the simple design, they could probably get some clock scaling room with progressive die shrinks.

 

[bokdol]

switch was needed?

no the switch was not needed. but it was wanted. apple was a nitch player in the market. the people thought the g5 was what apple was all about. the graphics machine not for the consumer market. did intel save apple... no it did not. did intel open the mac market up to new users... yes it did. intel was not a right or wrong choice. it was a marketing choice. make money.

which do i like better? i perfered the ppc. but osx ran fine on both. and windows on the intel make my work environment nicer

and i would not be surprised if apple kept up a ppc devision and made machines using the ibm. remember steve did say they were runnin intel for 5 year before.

 

[FocusAndEarnIt]

I think that we should all stop talking about Cassie's theory.

It's her opinion which pretty much none of us agree on. Back on topic...

 

[Benjamin]

Okay, first of all, the POWER6 would be a G7, not a G6 (POWER4 was the G5).

G5 was related with the POWER4 but was not a POWER4 but a derivative.

Now, also remember the difficulty Apple had with putting the G5 into a laptop? That's because the POWER chips were never meant to run in consumer machines.

True but Apple never had to deal with POWER in a laptop only the G5 a PPC. But yes G5 had it's own set of heat problems.

If we were still using the POWER chips, the desktops would be really fast, yes...

Apple never used POWER only PPC.

Just some corrections but your statement does hold true in regards with heat and future forecast with time scales and generational gap.

 

[Stella]

People are far more prepared to buy an Intel based machine - a processor they recongise than some 'strange' PPC machine. They are also able to windows and its apps via dual boot and virtualisation.

Keeping PPC processors would be flogging a dead horse.

Switching to Intel has done Apple wonders.

 

[tuartboy]

Why do you need more power?

As a self-employed photographer, every second I wait for my computer I lose money. Computers will never be fast enough for me because as the computer's speed increases, so will the file sizes of RAW images and the complexity of the processing algorithms.

Hard drives will never be large enough. I struggle with *only* 1.5TB of online storage. I can shoot 20GB of photos in one job easily and you can see how quickly that adds up.

I burn 100's of DVDs a month and often have both drives in my Mac Pro churning. As long as a DVD burn is slower than instant, there is always room for improvement.

I have 5GB of Ram in my Mac Pro and I still have greater than a 1:1 page in to page out ratio (read: bad). As long as my ratio is not something:0, then there is room for improvement.

I have dual 8-bit 24" monitors and as long as the color is not dead on, there is room for improvement. Even with 2 large monitors I run Desktop Manager to get another 4 virtual desktops because I don't have enough room for all the applications I need to run concurrently.

I have the 15Mbs/2Mbs FIOS plan and it still takes hours to upload large archives and galleries for client preview. If it's slower than local storage, again, there is room for improvement.

Even if you don't make money, new technology makes your life easier and cheaper. Utility companies can streamline their processes to lower costs. Gas stations can build credit card readers into gas pumps for easy pay. Online banking. You name it and it has all come about because of increased performance and lower costs of equipment.

New technologies and increased performance also play a large part in the medical field. Huge processing power is needed for protein folding, medical imaging and medical databases. Using higher power processing of an image of your lungs may allow a doctor to recognize a malignant tumor instead of a jpeg artifact and save your life...

Who is to say that we need to stop developing?

 

[whatever]

Thought this site had died!

Wow, it was looking like Macrumors was dead, since there hasn't been a new story for a couple of days.

It would be a good 2 to 3 years before IBM ever turned the Power6 over to Apple.

The G5 is based on the Power4.

It took IBM 5 years to releaser the Power5, which was released in 2005. So add 5 years to the date of the announcement of the Power6.

What Apple proved with the Intel switch is that their OS is flexible enough to be used on different CPUs. Perhaps in five years Apple will adopt Power6.

 

[pgwalsh]

I think PPC would've done them just fine!

Do we really need faster clock speeds? 3 GHz is about as much as anyone needs, sans the real professionals.

We should pretty much stop all processor development, and live with what we have.

By your logic, we might as well have stopped with the Pencil. After all, that's really all you need to write or do math.

 

[Stella]

I think that all of you that says that Intel do the right thing it's because you are a new mac users or windows/mac users.....

Gross generalisation.

I've read that so much users says that it's for the possibility of use windows... who needs windows?

Not all apps are available for OSX.

The ability to run windows apps is a selling point, especially for switchers.

OSX isn't a silver bullet, that is good for every situation. People like playing games, and windows is a good platform. "Buy a console" is not an answer either. A lot of good games aren't available on consoles because they aren't suited for a console platform, i.e., Eve online, comes to mind

In my opinion, I think that PowerPC architecture is better, RISC obtain a better perfomance with a simple hardware.

No laptop suitable processors.

G4s are seriously lame.