Do you think apple should continue PowerPC?

[Sun Baked]

Basically no, because IBM and Freescale refuse to support the platform with updates needed to keep up with Intel, and both balked at the bail-out point.

IBM essentially killed the G5 (Power4-Lite) successor which was a Power5-Lite, and only after doing well in another venture did they elect to update the line with a Power6-Lite (if it is still a go, haven't checked lately.)

At the critical point juncture all they offered Apple was the Cell or pay all the R&D for the Power5-Lite.

The PowerPC can keep up with Intel, but doing it once every 5 years or even every 3 years doesn't make for a viable desktop when Intel and AMD are moving forward every few months.

However, this update method for CPUs -- every few years -- works nifty for game platforms.

---

If Amiga hadn't imploded at the G5 intro, things might have been different with another computer company and OS.

Apple alone cannot support a pair of chips -- but Apple, Amiga, and Linux might have had a chance to force IBM and Freescale to keep up.

 

[Shadow]

Microsoft is pretty much limited to x86, so advantage goes to Apple.

You are correct, but also "technically" incorrect. Windows NT (ie 2000, XP, Vista, etc but not 9x & Me) was originally designed to be processor independent. They has it running on x86, MIPS, PowerPC ( ) and Alpha. I imagine MS has done the same as Apple, in that they have NT-Based versions of Windows running on all the chips mentioned above for the "just in case" scenario that the whole world suddenly decides to say "Lets use MIPS instead!".

Its been proven that MS are still developing it for other platforms (or at least the kernel) because of the Xbox 360-it runs on a Windows 2000 kernel (albeit stripped down and heavily modified) on PowerPC. Windows NT can be recompiled to run on different processors.

On topic: No, because AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) is dead.

 

[Flynnstone]

You are correct, but also "technically" incorrect. Windows NT (ie 2000, XP, Vista, etc but not 9x & Me) was originally designed to be processor independent. They has it running on x86, MIPS, PowerPC ( ) and Alpha. I imagine MS has done the same as Apple, in that they have NT-Based versions of Windows running on all the chips mentioned above for the "just in case" scenario that the whole world suddenly decides to say "Lets use MIPS instead!".

Its been proven that MS are still developing it for other platforms (or at least the kernel) because of the Xbox 360-it runs on a Windows 2000 kernel (albeit stripped down and heavily modified) on PowerPC. Windows NT can be recompiled to run on different processors.

On topic: No, because AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) is dead.

AIM is dead, but power.org is still alive.
The PowerPC is still very alive in the embedded work. I guess Intel on the desk, PowerPC under the TV.

Does Microsoft have Vista running on PowerPC or Alpha? Itanic?
I thought multi platform support died after NT 3.5.

 

[dpaanlka]

My dream situation, had Apple's market share been more comfortable and finances better, would have been for Apple to just assume development on the PowerPC chips on their own.

Oh well... it's all over now.

 

[SuperCompu2]

I'm fairly positive IBM has continued their POWER series chips in their server lines for PPC versions of Linux, as well as the Cell for the PS3 and XBOX 360.

It is possible that in the near future a new streamlined PowerPC chip architecture will make its way to a consumer market, but for Apple to convert it's entire line back would be Just plain stupid at this point. Universal Binary keeps the door open for now, but once Intel-only apps begin to emerge, the possibility will fade.

Don't expect Apple to drop PPC development completely though. I guarantee every peice of Apple software for the near future (Post-G5) will have a PPC counterpart.

 

[Flynnstone]

My dream situation, had Apple's market share been more comfortable and finances better, would have been for Apple to just assume development on the PowerPC chips on their own.

Oh well... it's all over now.

I respectfully disagree.
Does Apple make the car or the engine? Chip design is horrendously expensive. And getting worse every year.
For example, given a billion dollars, is the money better spent on making Apple computer and OS X better or on a processor?
If they spent it on a processor, the money could have been wasted. For example if they ended up with a G6 that had lower performance then a Intel chip at the same price point.
Where Apple can a value is in the computer and in the software.

 

[Flynnstone]

To put things in perspective, a few years ago there was an interesting stat. It's probably still true today.
If you round to the nearest whole percent the processors running Windows to all processor sold,
the percentage is ....
.
.
.
.
Zero (0) percent!

This give a little perspective to why IBM and Motorola (Freescale) had a bit of a direction shift.

 

[MongoTheGeek]

I saw something a few months ago, and I can't for the life of me remember what it was but it seemed to indicate that Apple was working on a computer that had both a powerPC and an X86 chip. It would intelligently switch between them depending on if it needed to do floating point or integer.

 

[iMacZealot]

I think the PowerPC failed to deliver for Apple once Motorola spun off their chips to Freescale for the G4-- sure, the G4 was somewhat old by then, but it stopped advancing after that quite a bit. So, Apple and IBM had to choose which processor the G5 would be-- the PowerPC 970. While it was a great chip at first, especially for the PowerMac, it would've been impossible to shoehorn it into a portable. If you look at where the PowerPC and the Intel chips were seven years ago, the G4 was clearly a better choice over the Pentium 4. However, Intel's latest technology can't even compare to the PowerPC's, especially when looking at performance per watt. And while the Intel switch has been nearly quick and painless, it probably would be more painful to switch back, especially after switching not so long ago. I just don't see any advantage as to why the PowerPC would be better for the next decade (as Steve pointed out at WWDC05).

 

[cwedl]

Whats the point in apple spending all that money for this transition if they were going to go back. also being on intel will stop PC people saying "my pc is much faster than your Mac"

 

[Irish1978]

Its not about what IBM couldn't do, its about who has the most money. Intel has been tapping Steve on the shoulder for awhile. Its always about money

 

[Mr. MacBook]

i guess your right... core duo is overall faster.

I wish apple would use turion technology *sigh*

 

[Sun Baked]

I'm fairly positive IBM has continued their POWER series chips in their server lines for PPC versions of Linux, as well as the Cell for the PS3 and XBOX 360.

They did, but the next Power-based chip using the Power5 was dropped, and all Apple got was incremental updates based on the Power4.

The Power5-based chip was using the next generation process and included a bunch of power saving features in addition to adding virtual CPUs. Could very well have made the G6 Notebook possible.

The gameboxes will be perfectly fine for the old IBM/Motorola upgrade schedule -- since the new gameboxes can sync quite fine with a new generation chip every few years. Plus the gameboxes can support the volume needed for IBM/Freescale agree to cough up the R&D costs for these chips.

Basically, Apple could have had any chip they wanted when they wanted it -- as long as they paid for it themselves.

Which is too expensive for a single company to support with Apple's volume. Wait or pay ... an ugly marketing situation that Apple put up with for years.

You want a G6 notebook, the first one is expensive and will set you back $100 million. Basically, hello Intel.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

IBM had the capability to match Intel in chip performance (much like AMD), but with only one major PC customer (Apple) they did not find it economically attractive to do so.

...So we've gotten to the point where Intel's CPUs offer better performance than the PowerPC, offer lots of low-power variants specifically designed for PCs, and have massive volume. All of which were issues with the PowerPC line.

It's possible that Apple will one day switch from Intel chips to something else - maybe even back to a RISC CPU...but I doubt they'll ever return to the PowerPC as we know it.