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

[ajbrehm]

There are perhaps three important points to remember.

Apple's switch to Intel was good, and the usual reasons are well-known. More interesting is that the counter-arguments have been proven wrong.

For example I myself used to believe that once a Mac could run Windows well enough, Mac OS would die like OS/2 because users would simply become Windows users over time.

But over the last few years changes in both Mac OS and Windows have made that problem disappear. Microsoft's business model has changed and 100% Windows is no longer as important as it once was. And Apple have created so many good applications for Mac OS that the system can now offer a lot without any third-party support at all. Suddenly the platform itself has become the reason to run it.

The point is that thw switch to Intel was definitely the right thing to do. Faster PowerPC or POWER CPUs might be missed but none of Apple's competitors have them either, which means that Apple will never be behind; and that is more important than the chance of being ahead speed-wise.

The other point is that anything POWER can do is not out of reach for Apple.

While Apple cannot offer Intel and PowerPC machines as equal products for many reasons, what Apple can do is use POWER where appropriate. For example, should Apple gain market share and try to expand into the server realm more, Apple could offer a POWER-based Mac server running Mac OS X Server. They would have the OS, software to support the system, and years of testing already done. None of Apple's competitors can make use of POWER, not even Microsoft. (IBM are competing in a different market.)

 

[rgomez]

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.

I'm sorry Cassie, but you're editing video and sending emails because somebody, years ago (maybe even before you were born) thought: Why can't I do that with my computer? What's needed for that? It's not because they weren't happy with what they had. It's because they did not stop there.

It's not that people "needs" more power. It's that we want more power. Because we depend on that power to put food on our table, or have more time to enjoy life. And saying that in sometime that has to stop is trying to stop the only thing that gives us an advantage: intelligence. Our way as humans to evolve and have some evolution is not a biological one, it's a technological one.

So, if you're happy with your machine, and can work and have fun with that for the next 15 years, good for you! Honestly, it's ok. I'm not going to try to convince you that you need a Mac Pro to send emails (and you actually don't need it!) But you trying to say that the rest of the world doesn't need better and faster technologies is really odd from someone who doesn't depend on technologies to bring food to the table It's your opinion, nothing more!

Why would I want it to stop? I'm 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.

Well... as some others have said, software evolves. Allowing us to make different and better things. Compare the special effects of Terminator 2 with the ones from say, Spiderman 3 or some of that. Even if when the time Terminator 2 came up they were the best ones available, today they look really old. All that is possible because people is asking for more power and capabilities from the software. And that usually means more power from the computer where the software is going to run.

And that is only a small part of all the advatanges more power has made possible in the last years. From the sat television, Tivo, HD, online air tickets, amazon, and so on. Maybe lot's of things are "the way they have always been " for you, because at the end, you have 14 years of experience in this world. Less, actually, if you started to become aware of all those technologies say, at 6 or so. But all that is possible because we have better and faster machines. And it's really hard to say what is the world going to look in 10 years or so.

It's very possible there are limits of what we can do. But please, keep those limits for the laws of phyisics and so on. Not to a lack of interest from our part. That's what makes us human, remember that!

Regards,

 

[longofest]

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.

Not quite on the G7 thing. The 'G' stands for generation, and it refers to the PowerPC generation, not what POWER generation its deriving from.

G1 (term not used) = PowerPC 601 (came out at same time as POWER2)
G2 (term not used) = PowerPC 603 & 604 (released simultaneously)
G3 = PowerPC 740-750 (derived from PowerPC 603)
G4 = PowerPC 74xx series (derived from 604, G3, plus AltiVec)
G5 = PowerPC 970 (derived from POWER4, plus AltiVec)

note that the PowerPC 602 was not used by Apple.

 

[amancalledsun]

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.

Or, to put it a different way, like the American auto industry after the late 1970's, finding it difficult to accept that it's all over. Sorry, couldn't help myself

 

[sionharris]

Cassie 10 years ago I was listening to music on tape and watching films on VHS. I don't think I would be too happy if I was still having to replace my media each time the tape runs thin/snaps or the data becomes corrupted. It was well before your time but some tape players would completely chew up your music. Could you imagine playing your favourite CDs only for them to occasionally snap in half in the CD player? Yes CDs will scratch but if you look after them they could last decades, perhaps even centuries. The same cannot be said of magnetic tape.

Technology, for obvious reasons (increasing demand for something better, or to resolve problems that require more computing power), will always move forwards. Whether you choose to move forwards with it is entirely your choice. If not, you will benefit financially, however I will be VERY surprised if you are still running your 800MHz iBook in 10 years time whilst the rest of us are using internet connections that your computer no longer supports to play new high quality videos on the internet that your computer cannot support using a media player that quite possibly will not even fit on your hard drive. Hell, we might all be running an OS that will not work on your computer and you might be in a job where you want to work from home but can't because your PC won't run the applications and/or files that you need.

In 30 years time you might be in a position to say that you only like to change your computer every 15-20 years (if you had a computer from 15 years ago you wouldn't even be able to load a MySpace page with it now), but currently you don't own anything that's more than 5 years old. I appreciate that you have very strong opinions but what you lack is experience and I feel that your opinions will change drastically over time. I bet in 5 years you will laugh at what you have been saying in this thread.

 

[/dev/toaster]

Without a doubt they made the right choice. I would not have switched to Mac had they still been on PPC. I needed Windows in the beginning to wean me off it. Not to mention, when I first got my Mac I was working at a Windows heavy shop that required Windows for some of the tools.

Now, working at a mostly Mac shop its not so bad. But, I might not be where I am without the Intel version.

Same thing with my girlfriend. At first, she wouldn't use OS X, she booted into Windows. Slowly, she used OS X more and more. Now, she uses OS X exclusively.

The same holds true for many people I know. The Intel chipset has helped people move to Mac, while still allowing access to their old OSes. (Linux, BSD, Windows, etc) Emulation is never really the answer, its too damn slow.

I also like the fact that if I really want to go play Battlefield 2, or Half Life 2 ... I can install Windows again and fire it up.

 

[blitzkrieg79]

Of course the megahertz myth is not a lie. Even Intel had to drop their stupid marketing-driven Pentium strategy.

Megahertz myth was somewhat a lie, it was basically all about the entire architecture of a processor. 4 GhZ processor running on a 133MHZ system bus is basically choking as the processor can process much more data than the bus can, basically a lot of MHZ go to waste. It's all about perfect balance. Intel was pumping up the MHZ but it didn't do a whole lot to everything else, if they could balance everything out then you can be more than sure that even Pentium4 would whoop Athlons or G5s ass. But thats why the G5s were so impressive, although they ran at lower frequency, their bus could handle a whole lot more than Pentium4 could. And Intel had to drop their marketing startegy because basically their enginners got stuck at 3.8Ghz P4 with no room for improvement as the processor was ridiculously hot and used a lot of electricity, so they went back to drawing board. GHZ does matter but also the entire system bus design also matters. All in all I wouldn't mind having those G6 chips inside the desktop.

And the reason Apple switched to Intel was because IBM gave priority to Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft, given Apples small market share I would have done the same thing if I were IBM. "Performance-per-watt" is all bull, Motorola, IBM, and P.A. Semi already had working prototypes of portable chips that could go hand in hand with Intel Core Duo at the time of the switch. Thing is that IBM pretty much doesn't have the capacity to supply the chips to all of the mentioned companies. I think the biggest problem and the reason to switch was basically IBMs manufacturing capacity issues, but they do know how to design best in the world performance chips.

 

[sionharris]

To put some figures to my argument, computers from 15 years ago had 120MB hard drives and - get this - 4MB RAM. You wouldn't even be able to play a video, let alone edit it. Heck, a large percentage of videos wouldn't even fit on your hard drive.

If something went wrong you probably wouldn't be able to buy new parts and to be honest the whole thing would probably have packed in by now.

Replacing your computer every 2-3 years is the norm, 5-7 years is ok-ish for light users who don't care much for modern technology.

 

[blitzkrieg79]

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.

Yup, you pretty much hit the nail in the head. It's all about marketing, plus the fact that IBM has put Apple in the rear view mirror didn't help matters either as they focused on the server market and gaming consoles (especially the Cell). IBM didn't have the capacity to satisfy everyones needs so IBM chose the direction which would make them the most money.

 

[kingtj]

Exactly!

Apple is catering to the home/small business user, as much as anything. That's where Intel has a lot to offer, and IBM has little.

If Apple was only trying to market the Mac Pro and nothing else, then you could ask this question in a serious manner. But even THEN, I'd say they did the right thing. Design your system to use the CPUs produced by the R&D leader in CPUs, Intel.

POWER6 is very impressive cpu, as was power5 before it. but they are VERY hi-end cpu's, with pricetags to match. their main competitor in intel-land is the itanium. power6 would not have ended up in a mac, a cheaper derivative with less impressive specs would have. and what about laptops?

yes, appe did the right thing when they switched to intel.

 

[fall3n]

Yup, you pretty much hit the nail in the head. It's all about marketing, plus the fact that IBM has put Apple in the rear view mirror didn't help matters either as they focused on the server market and gaming consoles (especially the Cell). IBM didn't have the capacity to satisfy everyones needs so IBM chose the direction which would make them the most money.

Exactly right, it was what Apple had to do to become a competitor. It's all marketing. Like I said earlier, you can't run a business that relies on computer sales without any computer sales. Since the switch, Apple's computer sales having increases significantly.

 

[juice78]

-hertz Myths and Performance Comparison

Although mega- and giga-hertz clock speeds are useful and accurate for comparing similar processors, it doesn't help when comparing generations of x86 to each other or powerPC platforms.

With all the benchmark tests, etc, why doesn't someone (IEEE perhaps?) create a performance benchmark that scores overall performance of a processor with a simple score, which could be compared between processors of all breeds.

Then we could see that a 4.0 GHz Power6 has a performance rating of say 845, and a 2.33 Core2 Duo could be something like 739. then CPU and system manufacturers could market their products that way.

It's a lot like car performance. horsepower is not a cleanly direct way to compare the performance of cars. other factors play in like transaxel gear ratios, car weight, etc. If it was about horsepower alone, we wouldn't know that an 800 HP worktruck is slower than a 200 hp Subaru. We have other performance benchmarks for that: 0-60 times, etc.

another thing, even with the new Power6 coming out, if Apple was still using the PowerPC platform, it would be a while before it actually appeared in any machines. Obviously it would hit the Power Mac first, and probably wouldn't hit laptops until 2 years later, by the time a g7 was being announced.

also, other reasons Apple switched to Intel is because of power usage and heat.

 

[johnee]

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.

microcode DOES get upgraded in-system, and it DOES work for lots of customers.

and who said anything about G5 and P5 being the same? They are different, but you'd be surprised how similar they are. One of the biggest is P5 doesn't have the VMX unit (what you would know as altivec instruction set). however without going into details, we could say they are very kindred spirits.

However P6 is a huge departure from either of those designs.

 

[johnee]

Not quite on the G7 thing. The 'G' stands for generation, and it refers to the PowerPC generation, not what POWER generation its deriving from.

G1 (term not used) = PowerPC 601 (came out at same time as POWER2)
G2 (term not used) = PowerPC 603 & 604 (released simultaneously)
G3 = PowerPC 740-750 (derived from PowerPC 603)
G4 = PowerPC 74xx series (derived from 604, G3, plus AltiVec)
G5 = PowerPC 970 (derived from POWER4, plus AltiVec)

note that the PowerPC 602 was not used by Apple.

yeah, that Gx crap is meaningless at ibm.

 

[Mr.damien]

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

Let me guess, IBM said that a dual CPU Power6 will cost 60 000$.
So Yes, they made the good choice, and this question was useless ...

 

[Snide]

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.

LOL! Hey, even for goofing off (rendering iMovie clips, exporting/converting QT
clips, ect), my 2 Ghz Macbook kicks the snot out of my 2 Ghz G5 iMac.
As an example, the photoshop blur test took 1:50 for the iMac; 32 sec
for the Macbook. Best of all, the Macbook renders web-pages much faster!

 

[Clive At Five]

Replacing your computer every 2-3 years is the norm, 5-7 years is ok-ish for light users who don't care much for modern technology.

... or people who are poor.

I'd would love love love to get a new mac... but it just ain't in the cards for a while. Wedding... Moving out... Newbie out on the work force...

Not a lot of $$ to spare...

When I want to run Garage Band, I have to quit all other programs.

My poor, poor baby. 800MHz G4 and 512MB RAM just won't cut it anymore

It'll be 6 years old by the time I get him a younger zippier brother...

-Clive

 

[CoreWeb]

I've thought for awhile that Apple will keep PowerPC as an option. What the shift to Intel really did is give Apple some freedom. It allows Apple to use whichever kind of processor they want for a given machine. If Apple wanted to release a Mac with the new IBM processor, they could. After all, most of the programs are Universal Binaries, and PowerPC is still supported.

The only thing which might make Apple hesitate in such a move is the fact that everyone else thinks that the transition to Intel was a complete "switch". It might then give them bad publicity if they were to make another computer with a PowerPC chip.

I wouldn't be too surprised if Apple did release some more PowerPC computers in the coming years, but I wouldn't count on it either. But it is more logical to have the freedom to chose the best processor regardless the architecture.

 

[Wigletbill]

And when they finally go into 'mass production' only 5 of the processor will actually function well enough to find their way into a machine in the first year.

 

[F.D.]

Yeah and the switch to Intel has been updates every month hasn't it? Have a look at the buying guide - everything bar the Macbook needs updating. When I've said that recently people have said in reply "But to what?" QED. Intel is all tomorrow. If there was a choice between a G6 iMac @ 4.2GHz or even 4.7 GHz and an Intel@ 2.16 duo I'd go for the G6. I can get on with my art and wouldn't have to piss around with waiting for UB's, maintenance upgrades, Rosetta etc. When they do eventually get around to the next updates it will almost certainly be up from 2.16 to 2.33. Wow, overwhelming, yawn etc.

This makes no sense. PPC was always 'tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow'. Hence the endless, repetitive, and frankly annoying continual references to the PowerBook G5.

 

[cubbie5150]

TBH, I would not have made my recent switch to Mac were it not for the switch to Intel processors... A few work colleagues feel the same way..

 

[F.D.]

Nope, not kidding. I'm perfectly happy with my 1.8 GHz Mini and my 800 MHz iBook. I think 3 GHz is all the consumer mass as a whole needs. I think Apple should've stayed with PPC, and stayed where they were in terms of processor speeds. (RAM and hard drive updates would work though)


Loon

 

[Evangelion]

[

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

you are quite mistaken. the g-names simply refer to cpu's apple uses. they are apple-names. after g5 comes g6, they would not have jumped straight to g7, no matter what cpu their cpu is based on.

 

[Counter]

The POWER processors (POWER3, POWER4, POWER5 and POWER6) are IBMs high end server chips, and I mean high end. POWER4 used to come as dual core, with four chips mounted together with a tens of gigabyte connection for their shared L3 cache, and usually four of these 8 core systems sold as a 32 processor server. G5 was the stripped down low-cost version of POWER4.

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

I'm glad this post landed on the first page.

Cut down on the 'we could have had 4.7ghz in the next iMac revision!!!!11'

 

[BigHat]

Like they had a choice. PowerPC wasn't delivering the products Apple needed. Forget about the ability to run Windows (which also is reason enough to answer in the affirmative), INTEL is the "big dog" that leads the business. I want their chips and Mac software and design innovations.
If you still have doubts, look at the stock price.