Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple to reconsider PPC

Chance9888

Chance9888

macrumors member
Original poster
Apr 16, 2008
30
0
Louisiana
I know this sounds like a stupid post, but it will make a good point. If Apple were to just make intel and PPC Computers, selling the PPC computers for less, would they make more sales? Like if they still sold the iMac g5's for about 899, i'm sure it would have a lot of buyers, especially the first time mac users. They could still sell the intel's for the more advanced users, also.
Just trying to make a point, what are your reviews to this idea?
 
C

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
The truly advanced users would pick PPC because they know the x86 architecture is horrible garbage.
 
K

kabunaru

Guest
Jan 28, 2008
3,226
5
Why not make the Intel Macs cheap and PowerPC Macs at the higher-end scale (like current Macs)?
People should have an option between PowerPC and x86 Intel.
 
M

mpw

Guest
Jun 18, 2004
6,363
1
Trouble is going forward they wouldn't want to support and develop two separate product lines.

Also, would the PPC actually be cheaper than the Intel to produce?
 
Sun Baked

Sun Baked

macrumors G5
May 19, 2002
14,941
162
richthomas said:
Apple must have seen some really insane sh*t when they saw the future Intel roadmap.

i.e. Apple will not go back to Power PC
Click to expand...

Freescale and IBM both would update CPUs to win Apple back, but in 2 years when the next generation is due -- they'd look at their sales once again and decline to update to keep up with the x86, and go back to using last years tech and incremental updates.

Same thing they've done for a long long time.

Hey, lets try to capture more of the market ... ooops, didn't work. Tough luck Apple on the next updates and go out and find another OS vendor or three to compete with you and increase sales of the platform.
 
C

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
Peace said:
I've owned PPC G5 Mac Pros and Intel Mac Pros.

The Intel Mac Pro leaves the PPC G5 in the dust.
Click to expand...

So? Many people just buy a Mac because it looks pretty, not because they couldn't get faster PCs for the same money.

The same thing goes for the processors. The true techies prefer an elegant CPU than a faster hack.
 
zap2

zap2

macrumors 604
Mar 8, 2005
7,252
8
Washington D.C
cube said:
Macs increased in price when they switched to Intel.
Click to expand...

That only because Apple picked those chips to go into Macs.....Apple could have put crap chips in Macs, lowered cost, but they went higher end, and so they cost more(and because Apple like a nice profit margin on their stuff)
 
MisterMe

MisterMe

macrumors G4
Jul 17, 2002
10,709
69
USA
Peace said:
I've owned PPC G5 Mac Pros and Intel Mac Pros.

The Intel Mac Pro leaves the PPC G5 in the dust.
Click to expand...
That depends on what you are doing. Apple switched to Intel for two reasons where are really two facets of the same reason. Intel had developed a new fabrication process that dramatically cut heat production of its chips. [For years prior to that, Intel chips could fry eggs.] Intel also offered a large catalog of processors to choose from off-the-shelf and a vast engineering operation that relieved Apple of the need to engineer its own support chips.

Those who believe that Apple will not return to the PPC are probably right. However, never say never. I am absolutely convinced that Apple will not become a 100% Intel-based OEM. Apple learned a lesson from the IBM/Freescale experience it will never forget.
 
C

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
MisterMe said:
Intel had developed a new fabrication process that dramatically cut heat production of its chips. [For years prior to that, Intel chips could fry eggs.]
Click to expand...

The main reason for lower power consumption in the new chips is not the fabrication process, but a shift from the MARKETING-driven design of the Pentium 4 to an engineering-oriented one in the Core.
 
I

iMacmatician

macrumors 601
Jul 20, 2008
4,249
55
tuffluffjimmy said:
I'm glad apple chose the better processor. A faster, better more efficient processor is going to be better than a slow, hot resource hungry processor no matter how 'elegant' said processor is.
Click to expand...
Reminds me of Barcelona's "native" quad-core design. More elegant? Yes. Higher performing? Noooo. :rolleyes:
 
Lord Blackadder

Lord Blackadder

macrumors P6
May 7, 2004
15,678
5,511
Sod off
Supporting two architectures simultaneously is madness, unless you (as Apple is doing) you are transitioning between architectures, in which case it's temporary.
 
C

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
tuffluffjimmy said:
I'm glad apple chose the better processor. A faster, better more efficient processor is going to be better than a slow, hot resource hungry processor no matter how 'elegant' said processor is.
Click to expand...

You're comparing an old processor to a current one. That's not fair.
 
E

exabytes18

macrumors 6502
Jun 14, 2006
287
0
Suburb of Chicago
Yeah, back in the day, all the processors ran significantly warmer than they do today. G5s ran hot, P4s ran hot. Power efficiency has taken center stage so the days of throwing stripped down enterprise grade chips like the 970 into consumer grade products is over.

IBM still makes great processors, but their architecture isn't targeted at consumers. So yeah, if the true techie feels better having more registers / wider registers / whatever it is that makes their heart beat / it really doesn't concern the consumer since they really have no use for it.

Core2 is robust and efficient. It works well for laptops, desktops, servers, and supercomputers. It's what Apple saw when they Intel showed them their roadmap. It was clear then and it's clear now, Intel holds the processor crown and is defending it well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom