[Gamoe]

Seems Apple had an opportunity to put in much faster PPC chips in its portables, according to this Ars article. I tell you guys-- the Intel switch wasn't necessary or necessarily a good thing. I'm still looking forward to getting my new MacBook, mind you, but I can't say that the Mac is quite as special anymore. In fact, I tend to agree with this statement in the article:

The Switch represented a deliberate de-emphasis on the Mac as the profit center (and spiritual center, if you will) of Apple Computer and a shift to media and consumer electronics as the foundation for the company's future growth.

[Kerrigan]

If this is true, that the switch is not necessary or beneficial for the Mac platform, then the only reason why it would have occured is to facilitate Apple's switch to being a PC vendor.

Which is doubtful IMHO.

[turtle777]

Nah, why would Apple bet their whole future on a small company like P.A. Semi, when even big shots like IBM and Motorola failed to deliver their roadmaps. It would absolutely make no sense, and would have been a huge risk. And don't forget, the laptop market is not the only reason why Apple switched to Intel. The current G5s weren't going anywhere either, due to the heat issues.

So, NO, Apple had no real choice other than going with Intel if they wanted to stay in the business and remain competitive.

-t

[faragbre967]

I only skimmed the article but from what I did read I'd have to say what_the_heck is right. If IBM couldn't do anything with the PPC then a small company would have been too much of a risk for Apple. Intel has a pretty good roadmap, and I like that we can boot Windows natively if it's necessary.

[voodoo]

I still don't like the idea of dropping PPC for x86. IBM can well make laptop G5s but Apple wasn't interested. The Intel switch is still a mystery to me. I suspect it is many small reasons that weigh in, but there is no one decisive one.

IBM can make faster G5s
IBM can make G5 mobile processors
IBM has a solid roadmap for PPC
IBM offers cheaper processors

Intel offers much of the same, except their processors are more expensive and they offer crappy integrated graphic 'solutions' like the GMA950. Macs are Macs no more after changing to Intel, in my mind for some reason. I am not excited to see the MacBook or what kind of towers Apple will be offering in the future. Somehow the spark is gone.

Maybe its because of all the crap names like "MacBook" and "MacBookPro", which are about as in-eloquent and PeeCee-like as possible or maybe it is because Apple jumped the shark by going from the best to the mediocre.

Apple no longer makes hardware that competes against Wintels, they make hardware that competes with other Wintels. They just don't bundle Windows, is all.

V

[Salty]

They wanted to put the Wii's processor in my next Apple laptop? from what I understand Broadway is just an upgraded version of the old NGC processor. Which only ran at what 450Mhz? I'm sorry I don't want an 800Mhz or however fast the Wii is when I can have a Core Duo laptop. I mean OK I liked PPC, I liked being a little more stuck up than the average computer user... but really honestly I'd just like to be able to not feel as if my Mac was slower because of bad decisions at Apple.
As for P.A. Semi, did this company have anything that could compete with the Core Duo? I find it hard to believe that a small company like that is going to beat Intel.

[starman]

\/\/

/hugs his Intel Mac.

[Eug Wanker]

As was discussed at the time of the PA Semi announcement, it was effectively vapourware, and vapourware for a product that wouldn't be released in volume until 2007 at best, by a small startup company.

No thanks.

BTW, many were disappointed at the tone of the original October article:

"Ah, I can smell the indignant flames already. But that's ok, because I'm right, and when you're right you don't need asbestos underwear.

PS. While I'm shamelessly gloating like an eight-year-old spelling bee champion, I'm still waiting for apologies from all the folks who indignantly flamed me for posting video iPod "rumors and speculation" on the Ars front page."

Originally Posted by voodoo

Intel offers much of the same, except their processors are more expensive and they offer crappy integrated graphic 'solutions' like the GMA950.

Nobody is forcing Apple to use GMA 950, as evidenced by the MacBook Pros and iMacs.

Macs are Macs no more after changing to Intel, in my mind for some reason. I am not excited to see the MacBook or what kind of towers Apple will be offering in the future. Somehow the spark is gone.

Gotta love the nostalgia purely for Nostalgia's sake.

While I kinda like the G5, I say good riddance to the G4.

Maybe its because of all the crap names like "MacBook" and "MacBookPro", which are about as in-eloquent and PeeCee-like as possible or maybe it is because Apple jumped the shark by going from the best to the mediocre.

Now you're really reaching. Now that the low end MacBook is almost twice as fast as the high end G5 iMac, your "best to the mediocre" statement makes no sense at all.

Right now, the very best low power laptop CPU in existence from any manufacturer is Core Duo. There is nothing in the same league.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I still don't like the idea of dropping PPC for x86. IBM can well make laptop G5s but Apple wasn't interested. The Intel switch is still a mystery to me. I suspect it is many small reasons that weigh in, but there is no one decisive one.

IBM can make faster G5s
IBM can make G5 mobile processors
IBM has a solid roadmap for PPC

IBM has failed to meet Apple's demands. Perhaps they can accomplish these things someday, but that's worthless if you can't do them on deadline. IBM was pathetically late on the 3 GHz G5s Steve promised, while the Intel Macs were out ahead of schedule.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

IBM has failed to meet Apple's demands. Perhaps they can accomplish these things someday, but that's worthless if you can't do them on deadline. IBM was pathetically late on the 3 GHz G5s Steve promised, while the Intel Macs were out ahead of schedule.

I always wondered why Steve promised 3 GHz. It seemed like a very optimistic prediction, and one that IBM never publicly promised.

It was almost as if Stevie was setting things up to fail.

/tinfoil hat

[goMac]

Motorola already failed us, and IBM screwed us over by running late with the 3 ghz G5 and a mobile G5.

...and tiny PA Semi would have been a good idea? I don't think so. Apple wants to ship Macs in higher volumes, reduce engineer costs, and lower prices. Intel can do all those things for Apple.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It was almost as if Stevie was setting things up to fail.

I think Steve wanted to convert to Intel since day one. He was friends with Ortelli, used an Intel laptop for the first few years at Apple, came from a company which published an x86 operating system, and initially released Rhapsody for x86. I think the only thing keeping OS X on PowerPC was internal pressures and legacy support. Imagine transitioning to Intel and OS X at the same time though... ick.

[Big Mac]

If that's the case, then why did Apple run the G3 anti-Intel commercials? If Jobs had desired Intel from day one, I doubt he would have signed off on commercials that lampooned their offerings, thereby intensifying the rivalry with Intel Mac users felt. Instead, I fear Jobs made the decision in one of his mercurial fits. It will probably be a number of years before we know the real reason why Apple defected. At least it's good to know there are a number of us who oppose this move.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If that's the case, then why did Apple run the G3 anti-Intel commercials? If Jobs had desired Intel from day one, I doubt he would have signed off on commercials that lampooned their offerings, thereby intensifying the rivalry with Intel Mac users felt. Instead, I fear Jobs made the decision in one of his mercurial fits. It will probably be a number of years before we know the real reason why Apple defected. At least it's good to know there are a number of us who oppose this move.

At the end of the day Apple sells a product. It's better than them advertising "Our Macs are powered by G3 processors but we're not huge fans." Plus, Ortelli was a friend of Jobs.

Remember, while Apple was running those commercials, Jobs wasn't a Mac user. He was still using his ThinkPad.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

If that's the case, then why did Apple run the G3 anti-Intel commercials?

Because back then, the PowerPC was faster than Intel's chips.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Because back then, the PowerPC was faster than Intel's chips.

And don't forget you could actually stick the G3 in laptops too.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by goMac

And don't forget you could actually stick the G3 in laptops too.

Yep, basically the opposite of the situation now.

The Core Duo is Intel's G3.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by CharlesS

Yep, basically the opposite of the situation now.

The Core Duo is Intel's G3.

The analogy is not quite 1 to 1: the G5 still clocks faster (and is therefore faster) than the Core Duo.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The analogy is not quite 1 to 1: the G5 still clocks faster (and is therefore faster) than the Core Duo.

Wow, nice Apples to bananas comparison, dude.

-t

[His Dudeness]

Why not The Switch to AMD or the AMD 64?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by His Dudeness

Why not The Switch to AMD or the AMD 64?

I could imagine that Apple wanted to play it safe, and have a reliable partner that would execute the roadmap in time. With AMD as a smaller player, there would have, again, been more risk involved that with Intel.

-t

[Eug Wanker]

Why do people keep bring up AMD? AMD's laptop processors are not even the same league.

It's interesting... CNBC interviewed Jobs last week and asked him specifically about AMD. His response was that AMD makes good server chips but that about it. I agree. Well, server/desktop, but AMD no real comparable laptop chip.

There's much more to the deal of course, but this aspect alone is enough to make AMD a non-starter.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The analogy is not quite 1 to 1: the G5 still clocks faster (and is therefore faster) than the Core Duo.

A dual-core G5 THAT FITS IN A LAPTOP simply DOES NOT EXIST.

The Core Duo is therefore infinitely faster than the G5, for the majority of machines that Apple sells.

Also, the 1.83GHz Core Duo MacBook is roughly as fast as the G5 tower that costs TWICE AS MUCH (without monitor).

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The analogy is not quite 1 to 1: the G5 still clocks faster (and is therefore faster) than the Core Duo.

BZZZZT!!! WRONG!! MEGAHERTZ MYTH ALERT!!

Clock speed and performance are NOT related, in and of themselves. Clock speed is comparable ONLY within the same chip model.

That's why a 400MHz G3 was a LOT faster than a Pentium II (or was it III?) at the same clock speed. And why the Pentium M series (which the Core Duo is the direct descendant of) is much more powerful, per clock cycle, than the Pentium 4.



Saying that clock speed = performance is, as a general statement, highly wrong, and as a comparison between two chip families is absolutely dead wrong.


Clock speed is like RPM in an automotive engine. In cars, there are multiple ways of getting horsepower: one is to take a small engine and rev it high. Another is to bore out the cylinders, increasing engine volume. Another is to have more cylinders. So an engine at 3000RPM could be a 4 cylinder 1.5 liter engine putting out 60hp, or a V8 nearly redlining at 300hp. Or a truck diesel putting out 1000hp. You could also achieve, for example, 300hp by running a turbocharged four-cylinder at around 5000RPM, or that truck diesel nearly idling at 1000RPM. In a car, the only relationship of RPM to hp is within a specific engine model. Between models, RPM is a useless number.

And of course, horsepower isn't the only measure of performance in an engine.

Again: clock speed is NOT a measure of CPU performance, and is 100% useless in comparing disparate CPUs. Clock speed can only be used to compare members of the same CPU model family.

tooki

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by tooki

BZZZZT!!! WRONG!! MEGAHERTZ MYTH ALERT!!

Clock speed and performance are NOT related, in and of themselves. Clock speed is comparable ONLY within the same chip model.

That's why a 400MHz G3 was a LOT faster than a Pentium II (or was it III?) at the same clock speed. And why the Pentium M series (which the Core Duo is the direct descendant of) is much more powerful, per clock cycle, than the Pentium 4.



Saying that clock speed = performance is, as a general statement, highly wrong, and as a comparison between two chip families is absolutely dead wrong.


Clock speed is like RPM in an automotive engine. In cars, there are multiple ways of getting horsepower: one is to take a small engine and rev it high. Another is to bore out the cylinders, increasing engine volume. Another is to have more cylinders. So an engine at 3000RPM could be a 4 cylinder 1.5 liter engine putting out 60hp, or a V8 nearly redlining at 300hp. Or a truck diesel putting out 1000hp. You could also achieve, for example, 300hp by running a turbocharged four-cylinder at around 5000RPM, or that truck diesel nearly idling at 1000RPM. In a car, the only relationship of RPM to hp is within a specific engine model. Between models, RPM is a useless number.

And of course, horsepower isn't the only measure of performance in an engine.

Again: clock speed is NOT a measure of CPU performance, and is 100% useless in comparing disparate CPUs. Clock speed can only be used to compare members of the same CPU model family.

tooki

1) Car analogies always suck.

2) The G5 is indeed faster than Core Duo. It clocks faster, and performance is roughly similar clock-for-clock between Core Duo and Dual-core G5. The main problem is dual-core G5 takes a lot more power. It wouldn't be very hard for Intel to release a true desktop version of Core Duo that could match the dual-core G5's speed, but they have instead chosen to wait for Conroe.

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Nobody is forcing Apple to use GMA 950, as evidenced by the MacBook Pros and iMacs.

My point was that without switching to Intel CPUs then Apple couldn't have offered GMA950.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Gotta love the nostalgia purely for Nostalgia's sake.

Excuse me?

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

While I kinda like the G5, I say good riddance to the G4.

Agreed, when the switch to Intel was made the G4 was (or should have been) moving out of the entire Mac product line.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Now you're really reaching. Now that the low end MacBook is almost twice as fast as the high end G5 iMac, your "best to the mediocre" statement makes no sense at all.

Makes sense to me. PPC is a better architecture than x86. Always has been and no wonder, it is only 20 years younger and POWER is far better than Itanium.

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Right now, the very best low power laptop CPU in existence from any manufacturer is Core Duo. There is nothing in the same league.

True, but that's now. At one time in the late 90s Intel sat with its collective dick in its hand and watched the PPC zoom past it. They cought up and were king for a while and then PPC did again with the G3. The G3 was so fine that it could be used as is in a laptop. A desktop processor so low power that it ran cool and unaltered in a laptop. Intel could only dream of such a thing at the time. The PPC was a generation ahead then in mobile processors. Kind of like Intel is now. But Wintel users got by and eventually Intel delivered something. IBM would have delivered something too and by the looks of things they would have at about the same time as the MBP was released or so.

What I'm saying (and you know full well), is that no one stays on top forever. Intel makes and can make good processors but thinking IBM is any less motivated or capable is a mistake. So for Apple to ditch PPC just because at that moment they didn't have what Apple wanted was not logical. One can't just demand a tech when one wants one. I'm sure Intel would have given anything to have something like the G3 back in the day. But they chose to beef up on MHz instead. Apple went for portables and made laptops the thing to have. That is mostly thanks to the G3. A low voltage, high performance, cheap processor perfect for the first consumer laptops.

Now about a year into the announcement of the Mac Intel switch I still can't see a reason strong enough to justify the switch. IBM being late on a mobile G5 is no excuse to make users go through this crap or endure the new uber-crappy names of MacBook and MacBookPro.

V

[voodoo]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

IBM has failed to meet Apple's demands. Perhaps they can accomplish these things someday, but that's worthless if you can't do them on deadline. IBM was pathetically late on the 3 GHz G5s Steve promised, while the Intel Macs were out ahead of schedule.

Steve promised 3GHz, IBM said nothing. The MBPs have had their share of problems, so perhaps Apple should have done a bit more QA and testing before sending them out?

IBM is one of the best chipmakers in the world and have a modern and very nice architecture to offer. I question the wisdom of leaving it behind.. x86 over PPC..?

Ugh and the names.. I can't wait to see the MacTowerPro.

V

[analogika]

Originally Posted by voodoo

I still don't like the idea of dropping PPC for x86. IBM can well make laptop G5s but Apple wasn't interested. The Intel switch is still a mystery to me. I suspect it is many small reasons that weigh in, but there is no one decisive one.

IBM can make faster G5s
IBM can make G5 mobile processors
IBM has a solid roadmap for PPC
IBM offers cheaper processors

Oddly, they have thus far failed to do ANY of those things.

The "solid roadmap" indicates that we've been at 3GHz+ for TWO YEARS NOW. I'm utterly amazed that anybody could bring forth that argument with anything less than scathing sarcasm, let alone a straight face.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Steve promised 3GHz, IBM said nothing.

And more importantly did nothing. Yet somehow it was still unreasonable for Steve to switch when IBM was several years behind the rest of the industry on breaking 3 GHz and still had not released a good laptop chip.

Originally Posted by voodoo

The MBPs have had their share of problems, so perhaps Apple should have done a bit more QA and testing before sending them out?

All major PowerBook releases over the last several years have had their share of problems. People just want something to go wrong so they can form a bogus correlation with the processor.

Originally Posted by voodoo

IBM is one of the best chipmakers in the world and have a modern and very nice architecture to offer. I question the wisdom of leaving it behind.. x86 over PPC..?

PowerPC is great, but if nobody is actually going to do anything with it, that does me a lot of good. An architecture doesn't run my computer; a processor does. And IBM hasn't done a whole lot with the architecture since the original G5 came out.

[ChrisF]

Originally Posted by voodoo

IBM can well make laptop G5s but Apple wasn't interested.

How do any of us know that?

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

1) Car analogies always suck.

2) The G5 is indeed faster than Core Duo. It clocks faster, and performance is roughly similar clock-for-clock between Core Duo and Dual-core G5. The main problem is dual-core G5 takes a lot more power. It wouldn't be very hard for Intel to release a true desktop version of Core Duo that could match the dual-core G5's speed, but they have instead chosen to wait for Conroe.

1. Not when they are apt.
2. I didn't dispute that. But I did correctly dispute that clock speeds are comparable across CPU lines.

tooki

[goMac]

Originally Posted by ChrisF

How do any of us know that?

According to that recent Ars report, IBM offered the Broadway CPU, which probably would have been slower than the Core Duo.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Intel makes and can make good processors but thinking IBM is any less motivated or capable is a mistake.

Oh yeah? Then how come they weren't capable of making a mobile G5? How come the G5, as great of a processor it was, languished for the most part in the past year?

Originally Posted by voodoo

So for Apple to ditch PPC just because at that moment they didn't have what Apple wanted was not logical. One can't just demand a tech when one wants one.

So to put it in your words, Apple should have sat with its collective dick in its hand and watched Intel zoom past it? You're saying Apple should have waited for this magical PA6T-1682M, which according to the Register article was set to "sample in the third quarter of 2006" and only "ship in volume next year"? How do you explain that to your customers? There's no way in hell the G4 could compete with Core Duo. This would have set the mac platform back over a year, since of course, by the time this ships, Intel will be fabbing chips at much higher clock rates. Which will be going into Macs in short order. And who knows when the mobile G5 would have shipped?

Originally Posted by voodoo

Now about a year into the announcement of the Mac Intel switch I still can't see a reason strong enough to justify the switch.

Much faster performance, and compatibility with any software on the shelves justifies it fine for me. Macs are much more versatile now due to BootCamp and Parallels, and by early indications, this is attracting a lot of first-time buyers.

Originally Posted by voodoo

IBM being late on a mobile G5 is no excuse to make users go through this crap...

What crap?

Originally Posted by voodoo

...or endure the new uber-crappy names of MacBook and MacBookPro.

Spare me, I'd rather take crappy names and fast Macs over slow-ass G4s and hot-as-hell, lagging G5s any day.

Originally Posted by Chuckit

PowerPC is great, but if nobody is actually going to do anything with it, that does me a lot of good. An architecture doesn't run my computer; a processor does. And IBM hasn't done a whole lot with the architecture since the original G5 came out.

My thoughts exactly. The proof is in the pudding.

As it stands, Apple only has two more product lines waiting to be transitioned to Intel. All this in the time it would have taken for PA Semi to even sample their first batch of processors. And even if Intel doesn't maintain its lead over the next few years, Apple can easily go over to AMD or whoever it likes.

[harrisjamieh]

PPC in Mac is dead. End of. Intel has brought so many new possibilities to Apples computers over PPC. Take the iMac for example - Dual Core! Its virtually as fast as a Dual Core G5 tower but its in a tiny enclosure - that would have never been possible with PPC, at least in the next 2-3 years. Also, yes, maybe IBM did offer Apple the Broadway CPU, but I doubt it would have been as fast as the CD, and I also doubt it would be dual core (correct me if I am wrong), and it would probably have ru even hotter than the CDs in the lappies.

Finally, look at the speed of the CD mini - amazingly fast in a teenie tiny box, again, no way would have been possible with PPC in the forseeable future.

Long live intel in Macs!

[SpaceMonkey]

The risk with IBM was that someday they might simply decide to abandon the laptop market altogether, like Motorola. Apple would have basically been IBM's only customer for laptop chips, and accounted for a very small percentage of their overall revenue. Better for Apple to switch to x86 on their own terms, rather than risk getting dumped in some future reorganization of IBM and left holding a line of PowerPC computers without any large PowerPC suppliers.

[Severed Hand of Skywalker]

Gee Apple chose Intel over some unknown start-up company. Stupid move.

[Jawbone54]

What is this rubbish that a Mac that has an Intel chip just isn't as "special" anymore?

I buy Macs because of OSX (main reason) and the great design, not because of the brand of the processor underneath. As long as the power is sufficient for my needs (and the MacBook itself falls into this category), then I'm extremely happy.

[MacManMikeOSX]

All I have to say is Altivec, Altivec, Altivec.

[production_coordinator]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Steve promised 3GHz, IBM said nothing. The MBPs have had their share of problems, so perhaps Apple should have done a bit more QA and testing before sending them out?

IBM is one of the best chipmakers in the world and have a modern and very nice architecture to offer. I question the wisdom of leaving it behind.. x86 over PPC..?

Ugh and the names.. I can't wait to see the MacTowerPro.

V

I've been burned by IBM and Moto too many times.

I say we just ride the Intel offerings at this point. One less thing to worry about.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by tooki

BZZZZT!!! WRONG!! MEGAHERTZ MYTH ALERT!!

Clock speed and performance are NOT related, in and of themselves. Clock speed is comparable ONLY within the same chip model. . . .

tooki, with all due respect, I am no need of lectures on clock speed comparisons across processor lines, MHz Myths, IPC, pipeline depth et al. My statement was based on the valid premise that the G5 and the Core Duo offer roughly equivalent clock for clock performance, and therefore, as long as the G5 clocks at an appreciably higher amount than the Core Duo, the G5 line will continue to outperform the Core Duo line.

[goMac]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

tooki, with all due respect, I am no need of lectures on clock speed comparisons across processor lines, MHz Myths, IPC, pipeline depth et al. My statement was based on the valid premise that the G5 and the Core Duo offer roughly equivalent clock for clock performance, and therefore, as long as the G5 clocks at an appreciably higher amount than the Core Duo, the G5 line will continue to outperform the Core Duo line.

The G5 at even 2 ghz wouldn't fit in a laptop. The G5 at 2.5 ghz is still fast, that's true, and that's probably why we still have the Power Mac G5. But the Core 2 Duo and the Core 2 Quad will be much faster than the G5.

[harrisjamieh]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

tooki, with all due respect, I am no need of lectures on clock speed comparisons across processor lines, MHz Myths, IPC, pipeline depth et al. My statement was based on the valid premise that the G5 and the Core Duo offer roughly equivalent clock for clock performance, and therefore, as long as the G5 clocks at an appreciably higher amount than the Core Duo, the G5 line will continue to outperform the Core Duo line.

Yes, but that isn't reality, because in a few months, when Core2Duo is out, clock speeds are only set to increase to roughly 2.33 Ghz, whereas performance is set to increase by ~35%. It may be true that the G5 outperforms the Core Duo, but how is the relavant? The iMac could never have had a dual core G5 due to heat issues, so now with CD it is roughly the same speed as a dual G5 - Intel has made this happen. Also, you would expect the $2000 + desktop systems to perform better than a $1100 consumer laptop

[Big Mac]

And none of what either of you said affects the validity of my original statement. Obviously it won't be hard for Intel to completely beat the G5 eventually, since Apple has killed the G5. But as of now my original statement holds true.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by voodoo

Makes sense to me. PPC is a better architecture than x86. Always has been and no wonder, it is only 20 years younger and POWER is far better than Itanium.

For a better architecture, it's still slower when it matters.

And Itanium is irrelevant to the conversation.

True, but that's now. At one time in the late 90s Intel sat with its collective dick in its hand and watched the PPC zoom past it.

Nostalgia again...

They cought up and were king for a while and then PPC did again with the G3. The G3 was so fine that it could be used as is in a laptop.

You're free to buy a G3 Mac if you wish. I sold my G3 4 years ago because it was so damn slow that I wanted to rip my hair out.

What I'm saying (and you know full well), is that no one stays on top forever. Intel makes and can make good processors but thinking IBM is any less motivated or capable is a mistake. So for Apple to ditch PPC just because at that moment they didn't have what Apple wanted was not logical.

A bird in the hand... Plus now Apple has AMD and Intel duking it out for dominance. On the PowerPC side, Apple had IBM. Freescale doesn't count, and neither does PA Semi.

Apple got sick of swimming upstream, and I'm sure they didn't enjoy subsidizing IBM's CPU design lab either.

Now about a year into the announcement of the Mac Intel switch I still can't see a reason strong enough to justify the switch. IBM being late on a mobile G5 is no excuse to make users go through this crap or endure the new uber-crappy names of MacBook and MacBookPro.

Of course, the stupid names have zero to do with the CPU. And yes, IBM being late on a mobile CPU is an excuse to switch sides. I had hoped and hoped that IBM could come up with something quickly, but the bottom line is they didn't, and Freescale couldn't fill the void either.

BTW, one of the VPs who left IBM hinted that IBM didn't seem to want to put a ton of effort behind its G5 mobile project.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

And none of what either of you said affects the validity of my original statement. Obviously it won't be hard for Intel to completely beat the G5 eventually, since Apple has killed the G5.

BZZZT.

IBM killed the G5 ("three GHz within a year of today" - in 2003, IIRC?).

Apple merely abandoned a dead-end.

[tooki]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

tooki, with all due respect, I am no need of lectures on clock speed comparisons across processor lines, MHz Myths, IPC, pipeline depth et al. My statement was based on the valid premise that the G5 and the Core Duo offer roughly equivalent clock for clock performance, and therefore, as long as the G5 clocks at an appreciably higher amount than the Core Duo, the G5 line will continue to outperform the Core Duo line.

Without the qualifier that a G5 and Core Duo have similar performance, MHz for MHz, your "therefore" statement is patently false. I stand by my condemnation of your statement.

tooki

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by analogika

BZZZT.

IBM killed the G5 ("three GHz within a year of today" - in 2003, IIRC?).

Apple merely abandoned a dead-end.

Exactly. That was a deadline. When Apple first released the G5, the fastest was 2 GHz. Now, three years later, the fastest is 2.5 GHz. If the Core Duo gets more than a 500 MHz bump in the next three years, it would easily overtake the G5 even if the G5 were just as actively developed as it has been.

[Salty]

I find it hard to believe that this PA Semi company didn't realize that Apple wasn't going to leave the PowerBooks at 1.67Ghz for all of 2006.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by MacManMikeOSX

All I have to say is Altivec, Altivec, Altivec.

Gonna miss AltiVec.

[Salty]

Altivec made things fast... the Core Duo makes things really fast.

I won't miss Altivec that much.