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

Do you think apple should continue PowerPC?

M

Mr. MacBook

macrumors 6502
Original poster
Feb 28, 2007
337
0
Do you think that apple should continue staying with their ever-popular intel core line of processors, or should they move on and make a matching PowerPC G6?

I would love if they would make a faster PowerPC. Its supposed to run certain programs (but not overall) faster.


PowerPC G6 dual-core for MacBook and MacBook Pro
PowerPC G6 dual-core for iMac and Mac Mini
Two dual PowerPC G6 server dual-core for Mac Pro.

Still, if they do, stay with the new names. MacBook is way cooler than iBook...
 
um... no.

there is no point to do this. the PowerPC architecture is dead for the Personal Computer market. IBM couldn't get the G5 to grow, they tried. i would imagine that Apple pressured them to try hard too. there really is no where for it to go at this point.
 
After selling my iBook and getting this MB, no way could I agree that Apple should go back to PPC. Nuh-uh. This thing shames my iBook, PB and maybe even my iMac G5. :p
 
PlaceofDis said:
um... no.

there is no point to do this. the PowerPC architecture is dead for the Personal Computer market. IBM couldn't get the G5 to grow, they tried. i would imagine that Apple pressured them to try hard too. there really is no where for it to go at this point.
Click to expand...

G5 actually wasnt that bad... it was actually pretty powerful. Just that apple didn't adopt dual-core so it got screwed down... HARD by intel.
 
Mr. MacBook said:
G5 actually wasnt that bad... it was actually pretty powerful. Just that apple didn't adopt dual-core so it got screwed down... HARD by intel.
Click to expand...

um, its that development on it stagnated. IBM couldn't even get it to 3.0GHz like they promised. its not that it was a bad chip, its that it had no grow potential.
 
I'd buy an intel chip equipped 12" iBook in a heartbeat. Not keen on the MB design at all.
 
I will assume Apple will always keep the option open if Intel loses it again and they pull another P4 on Apple. I am sure they have that building where the hid the x86 version of OS X converted to the hiding place of PPC OS X once Apple drops PPC support officially.
 
Mr. MacBook said:
MacBook is way cooler than iBook...
Click to expand...


I'm afraid everybody is right. Though I'm typing on a PPC machine, and have another PPC machine to my left, even though I entered the world of Apple when it was very much a PPC world and even though I love my PPC machines -- PPC is dead.

Or ...

"It's not pinin', it's passed on! This parrot is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late parrot. It's a stiff. Bereft of life, it rests in peace, if you hadn't nailed it to the perch it would be pushing up the daisies! It's rung down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This is an ex-parrot!"

And I can't believe you're harshing "iBook." Next think I know people'll be looking for MacPods.
 
I miss the PPC and the rhetoric around it being a more efficient/fundamentally faster chip, but I think Apple made the right decision and has executed it with more grace than ever considered possible.
 
I actually thought that the PPC was kinda slow. I had a 1GHz g4, a 1.8GHz G5, and a dual 2.0GHz G5. They were fast with one application, but when you started doing many things at once, they didn't seem fast.

Also, Intel chips seem more responsive... for instance, click and resize a window using a PPC, and then an Intel... the Intel chip is a lot "quicker"
 
Mr. MacBook said:
G5 actually wasnt that bad... it was actually pretty powerful. Just that apple didn't adopt dual-core so it got screwed down... HARD by intel.
Click to expand...

The G5 did go dual-core. The Quad G5s don't have 4 CPUs in them, you know.

--Eric
 
Mr. MacBook said:
Do you think that apple should continue staying with their ever-popular intel core line of processors, or should they move on and make a matching PowerPC G6?
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't make the chips. Intel does, IBM did before them, and Motorola did even further back.

I remember when people were hailing IBM as the savior of Apple and that Motorola could kiss off.

As others have said, IBM faltered when Apple needed them the most. If the G5 had been able to succeed, Apple might not have abandoned the PPC platform, but as it was, the platform was stagnating, the chips were running hotter and consuming more power, and there was no way Apple was going to be able to to keep milking the G4 series for the Powerbooks/iBooks.

Intel, and the dual-core technology, was the easiest solution for Apple. While I didn't agree with it at the time, simply because of nostalgia reasons, it was the best move Apple could have made. It made them competitive again.
 
Mr. MacBook said:
Do you think that apple should continue staying with their ever-popular intel core line of processors, or should they move on and make a matching PowerPC G6?

I would love if they would make a faster PowerPC. Its supposed to run certain programs (but not overall) faster.


PowerPC G6 dual-core for MacBook and MacBook Pro
PowerPC G6 dual-core for iMac and Mac Mini
Two dual PowerPC G6 server dual-core for Mac Pro.
Click to expand...

I think they should stay/be processor independant.
If IBM or Freescale comes out with a G6 that is better than the Intel Core series. Then great! (but not likely)
Or OS X runs on a ARM processor. iPhone and it's offspring.
Microsoft is pretty much limited to x86, so advantage goes to Apple.
 
Frankly, I could care less.

If my computer does what I need to do at a speed that's acceptable to me, I don't care what's powering it, whether it's x86, PPC, vacuum tubes, or a bunch of hamsters running around in wheels
 
I'm still using a PPC iBook, and while I don't have any hands-on experience with intel macs, I've read numerous posts claiming mactels don't have the 'snappy' effect the older PPC ones did.

I'm sure it was the right decision switching, although... just a short while after Apple anounced the processor switch, a macrumors story surfaced about a company developing PowerPC processors that were a lot faster and more developed than the G5s with much better power efficiency.

Oh well, I can't help but remember when macs were different in that aspect from what else was out there, and feel nostalgic.
 
cbg.gif


Worst. Idea. Ever.​
 
Flynnstone said:
I think they should stay/be processor independant.
If IBM or Freescale comes out with a G6 that is better than the Intel Core series. Then great! (but not likely)
Or OS X runs on a ARM processor. iPhone and it's offspring.
Microsoft is pretty much limited to x86, so advantage goes to Apple.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The advantage of the Universal Binary is OSX can operate on both PPC and x86. It's to Apple's advantage to be as flexible as possible in this regard.

They've learned a lesson here in that Apple should be beholden to another company for it's success. Motorola was a boat-anchor and IBM a pair of concrete shoes for Apple.
 
hulugu said:
They've learned a lesson here in that Apple should be beholden to another company for it's success. Motorola was a boat-anchor and IBM a pair of concrete shoes for Apple.
Click to expand...

So..... somehow relying on Intel for your chips is better?
 
SC68Cal said:
So..... somehow relying on Intel for your chips is better?
Click to expand...

Simple. If Intel goes under or really screws up, they can start using AMD without the need for any sort of massive transition since it's the same architecture.

Apple was locked into Motorola then IBM with no alternative whatsoever. They may be locked into Intel contract-wise, but technology-wise, they have alternatives.
 
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
Back