This is a matter of perspective. Not all of us consider 2005 to be "back in the day." If you have a longer perspective, then your statement breaks down completely. For example, the PPC G3 ran so cool that it required a cooling fin the size of a gum wrapper. The Pentium Pro ran so hot that it quickly disappeared from consumer systems.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to reconsider PPC
- Thread starter Chance9888
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One of the reasons Apple switched away from PPC is because it wasn't moving fast enough. They just couldn't keep up with Intel and AMD. What makes you think they would go back?
Yes, it was harder to judge the prices since nobody else was using the same hardware as apple.
I would welcome PPC back if it guaranteed better performance in both the mobile platform and desktop.
who really cares?
there is no reason for apple to do this at this point.
why do people love ppc so much? seriously
who really cares?
there is no reason for apple to do this at this point.
why do people love ppc so much? seriously
Because! back in 2001 - 03 if you had a mac people would stop to stare and say WOW! now its just 'oh cool.. hey did you know macs suck ? "
you think the general public has any idea what processor a computer uses? seriously
who really cares?
there is no reason for apple to do this at this point.
why do people love ppc so much? seriously
Q: Why do people love PowerPC so much?
A: Because it made people scratch their heads like it is an alien processor (people are not familiar with them) and cannot be compared to PC hardware directly.
That's one reason.
Of course not, which is why the numerical comparison becomes even more imperative.
Back in PPC days, Macs were seen as "slow" because the CPU speed was far below Wintel machines in nominal terms. Now it's a lot easier to see a Mac and PC side-by-side and say, "oh look, they're the same."
On a side note, isn't the title a bit deceptive? When I first clicked on this thread, I thought that this was some news story or something.
no they are not, apple claimed itself that switching to Intel increases speed by 2-4 times, where is the "same"?
no they are not, apple claimed itself that switching to Intel increases speed by 2-4 times, where is the "same"?
PPC had horrible product update cycles. When IBM released a new PPC proc. it would be comparable w. PC Intel/AMD models and hold its own. Then a month later, new processors from Intel/AMD would be released and comparisons went out the window until a year or more later when PPC would be updated again. PPC was always playing catch up and it was a losing battle for Apple to continue to use them.
There will be no going back now.
no they are not, apple claimed itself that switching to Intel increases speed by 2-4 times, where is the "same"?
He's saying that Macs and PCs are the same post-Intel switch.
no they are not, apple claimed itself that switching to Intel increases speed by 2-4 times, where is the "same"?
That's because the last revision of PPC was incredibly dated at the time that Apple announced the move to Intel.
And these days Macs and PCs are most definitely the "same" in CPU terms. There's very little left to distinguish Apple hardware these days from any other PC maker other than superior external design and lower weight. The true meat and potatoes of what makes a Mac a Mac is found in the OS.
Precisely.
I do agree with your statement, from one aspect, yes, for most recent CPU, apple maybe behind "slightly", the "slight delay" is pretty much negligible.
But again, to cover wide price range, as PC is doing, CPU being most "recent" is only part of the game. If apple ever wants to do so.....Intel sure has better offering than PPC...
Macs and PCs, in terms of CPU... most recent? yes, pretty much the same. More variety? probably not..
Tuesday is just around the corner....you never know, you may just see a 'classic line' running PPC CUP's.
You mean Apple going back to PPC? I doubt it will happen anytime soon, if at all. I'm sure Apple looked at Intel's and Motorola's roadmap before making its decision.
I do agree with your statement, from one aspect, yes, for most recent CPU, apple maybe behind "slightly", the "slight delay" is pretty much negligible.
But again, to cover wide price range, as PC is doing, CPU being most "recent" is only part of the game. If apple ever wants to do so.....Intel sure has better offering than PPC...
Macs and PCs, in terms of CPU... most recent? yes, pretty much the same. More variety? probably not..
I'm not sure what you're talking about.
All I'm saying is that since the switch to Intel, we can compare Macs and PCs as we would apples to apples (no pun intended) as opposed to before, when the comparison was more apples to oranges.
I make no comments here about Apple's willingness (or not) to compete on the same terms as other PC makers.
Never going to happen, the PPC as a general purpose desktop computer processor is going nowhere.
Plus, how much of the application base would they lose? Many apps are already intel only - many more will be in the future, esp. if Snow Leopard or 10.7 is intel only.
It would be a bigger mistake than the clones were.
Plus, how much of the application base would they lose? Many apps are already intel only - many more will be in the future, esp. if Snow Leopard or 10.7 is intel only.
It would be a bigger mistake than the clones were.
Well, the way i meant it is as if Apple were to sell BOTH types of computers. If they Sold PPC for less, because obviously they are cheaper, and sold the intels for more, they would probably make more sales, due to the lower cost, and bigger range of computers
Exactly.... I know it has been rumored but if SL is intel only, one can see the writing on the wall about ever going back to PPC.
So is this thread about whether Apple will or should reconsider PPC? Because you know they won't. (Take a look at Snow Leopard, for example. Apple's already cutting the lifeline on PPCs.)
Now whether they should or not... it might be interesting, down the road, to keep both options open. The whole idea of being "platform independent" still seems like a wise idea. But is it worth the hassle? Seeing how much Intel is cooperating, even giving Apple a preference among its clients, I'd say it's safe for Apple to stick with Intel for the near future.
irmongoose
Now whether they should or not... it might be interesting, down the road, to keep both options open. The whole idea of being "platform independent" still seems like a wise idea. But is it worth the hassle? Seeing how much Intel is cooperating, even giving Apple a preference among its clients, I'd say it's safe for Apple to stick with Intel for the near future.
irmongoose
Due to the cost of the extra engineering and smaller economies of scale, I don't think there's any way Apple could produce a PowerPC-based computer for less money than an Intel-based computer.
If Apple wanted to cut corners and sell cheaper machines, they could use cheaper, slower Intel processors than they currently use. A lot of PC makers still use 1.66GHz Core 2 Duo chips, whereas the baseline MacBooks and iMacs clock in at 2.1GHz and 2.4GHz, respectively.
Didn't I read that Lenovo bought IBM? I mean the Chinese company Lenovo?
Or did they just buy the Hitachi part of IBM?
Not that it matters.
However, I am still running PPC machines. Still really love my old G4s/G5s.
Or did they just buy the Hitachi part of IBM?
Not that it matters.
However, I am still running PPC machines. Still really love my old G4s/G5s.