[Koralatov]

It’s quite an old article, but I only came across it the other day. In it, Jon Stokes asserts that switching to Intel means that Apple will no longer innovate. Money quote:

They jumped ship because they no longer care about making leading-edge computer hardware. They also don't care about PC market share, or any of that other G3-era Mac Faithful malarkey. From now on, merely "good enough" is good enough for the Mac line, and the real innovation will come in the form of post-PC gadgets and entertainment-oriented, techno-cool doohickeys.

Now, call me disloyal to the ‘spirit’ of the Mac, but I don’t think one can flippantly claim that a MBP is any more or less ‘Mac’ than a Pismo. Granted, my favourite era of Apple design is in the past, but I would still consider their products more innovative than the average PC—multitouch on the MBA and new MBPs is proof enough for me.

In many respects, I think sticking religiously to PPC would have prevented innovation in Mac design. The total inability of IBM to ship laptop-capable G5s proves this, as does the fact that the current Mac mini spanks a PM G5. The MBA wouldn’t have been possible on PPC.

As such, I’m somewhat confused as to the level of devotion some people have to the PPC platform. I genuinely do not understand what difference it makes. Personally, I’m not really interested in architecture so much as performance and usability, and I don’t think the latter is affected at all by Apple’s use of Intel processors.

Anyone care to disagree?

[slpdLoad]

I don't see how anyone can say that the performance of Intel chips hasn't been a huge boost over where we were stuck with PPC chips.

[Eriamjh]

Innovation is NOT due to the chips you use. It's how you use them.

[Cold Warrior]

Apple can't fund innovation if sales are in the tank. One can't dispute that sales are far better now than ever.

This guy is just trying to get page clicks.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Innovation is NOT due to the chips you use. It's how you use them.

I'm inclined to agree here. I've been somewhat displeased with Apple's hardware however. Too often it seems they've put design over function and let their consumers show them where the engineering wasn't up to par. MBA cooling for example.

[Don Pickett]

The most innovative thing Apple's done lately--the iPhone/iPod multi-touch interface--has nothing to do with PPC, or x86 for that matter.

[Atheist]

The PowerPC vs Intel thing is totally lost on me.

[64stang06]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Apple can't fund innovation if sales are in the tank. One can't dispute that sales are far better now than ever.

This guy is just trying to get page clicks.

Well, it was written in 2005.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Don Pickett 

The most innovative thing Apple's done lately--the iPhone/iPod multi-touch interface--has nothing to do with PPC, or x86 for that matter.

Very true, although the iPhone/iPod touch use Xscale processors.

[ironknee]

the jump to intel was a tough thing to decide for Steve, i mean Apple i am sure...

remember all the reasons it was a bad idea for Mcs to run Windows software? "why would developers develop for MAcs then?"

but I think to the average consumer, it was a good thing because the MHZ barrier was lifted to start with.

and of corse, boot camp made it a back door inroad-- i can have mac os and play my pc games

It seems like the jump has added to the Mac's market share (along with the vista mess)

[Visnaut]

We need BigMac in here.

[Chuckit]

Did I accidentally fall through a portal to late 2005?

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Did I accidentally fall through a portal to late 2005?

Indeed.

Koralatov; Why did you create a thread over an article from three years ago?

[Koralatov]

Originally Posted by Atheist 

The PowerPC vs Intel thing is totally lost on me.

That’s exactly how I feel. I genuinely do not understand it. I’m exceptionally attached to some of the G3- and G4-era hardware (iBook clamshell, iMac G4, the Cube, iMac G3), but I’m attached to the machines themselves and their design, not the PPCs inside. To me, the design of the hardware is important, but, ultimately, what makes a Mac a Mac is OSX and its ease of use and the fact that it nearly always “just works”. The switch to Intel hasn’t changed this.

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

Koralatov; Why did you create a thread over an article from three years ago?

I apologise if it’s against forum rules—I didn’t realise. I created it because, despite being three years old, this kind of attitude seems to be just as prevalent today amongst the ‘Mac faithful’ as it was then.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by slpdLoad 

I don't see how anyone can say that the performance of Intel chips hasn't been a huge boost over where we were stuck with PPC chips.

Remember when about 5-6 years ago, Intel was "stuck" and couldn't increase the clock speed anymore because of heat issues. Many said their existing design was doomed. But they turned it around.

I am very pleasantly surprised about Intel chips and their performance.

-t

[olePigeon]

I think the reason is because the PowerPC was "our" processor. It wasn't the x86 that dominated the desktop market, much like how Microsoft dominates the OS market. From that standpoint, a lot of people grew attached to the PPC chip as much as the Mac that it powers. It is a much better processor than Intel's. However, without hundreds of companies clamoring to use your desktop processor, Motorola & IBM really didn't have any incentive to invest more research capital into a processor used by pretty much only one company.

Ironically, now Microsoft uses the PowerPC to power their XBox game consoles, and PowerMac G5s to develop the software.

I think the switch to Intel helped Apple to grow. Being truly Windows compatible has helped Apple sell a lot of machines to new customers and make inroads into business and enterprise markets. The truth is, Intel's processors are more and more similar to RISC CPUs. Similar enough that Toshiba is making Intel/CELL chipsets.

For any PPC fans out there, this'll cheer you up (or depress) on what technology would have been implemented into the "G6" processor. Again, in a fit of irony, IBM solved the frequency::power leakage problem after Apple switch from IBM.

POWER6:

Dual 3.5GHz to 6GHz (Yes, 6GHz) Cores
300 GBps FSB
4MB L2 Cache per core
32MB L3 Cache
128-bit AltiVec
16GB RAM

The cool thing about the L2 Cache is, while each 4MB Cache is associated to one specific core, one core can still share its Cache with the other core. So if you're running low intensity application that isn't using the other Core, it can borrow the other 4MB Cache for a total of 8MBs of L2 Cache.

The 300 GBps BUS wasn't a mistype. Yes, that's nearly 30x anything Intel has.

The chip also has IBM's equivalent to Intel's Power Step. The processor can dynamically scale its power consumption and speed.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

POWER6:

Dual 3.5GHz to 6GHz (Yes, 6GHz) Cores
300 GBps FSB
4MB L2 Cache per core
32MB L3 Cache
128-bit AltiVec
16GB RAM

The cool thing about the L2 Cache is, while each 4MB Cache is associated to one specific core, one core can still share its Cache with the other core. So if you're running low intensity application that isn't using the other Core, it can borrow the other 4MB Cache for a total of 8MBs of L2 Cache.

The 300 GBps BUS wasn't a mistype. Yes, that's nearly 30x anything Intel has.

The chip also has IBM's equivalent to Intel's Power Step. The processor can dynamically scale its power consumption and speed.

Yes, all that sounds wonderful. But it's still irrelevant if it can't be made into a low-voltage, cool-running chip that works as well in a laptop as it does on the desktop. Really, that was the crux of the problem when Apple switched to Intel. Laptops made up nearly half of all hardware sales, and showed no signs of slowing, and Apple couldn't afford to let IBM languish in this regard.

Two factors were also at play at IBM, as well: Firstly, IBM has only ever excelled at big iron, not the small, efficient chips Motorolla had been capable of making until then. And secondly, they had their hands full with designing and producing the processors for the Xbox 360, the Nintendo Wii, AND the Playstation 3. Clearly, management's interest was in keeping and catering to such high-profile customers.

In the meantime Intel shifted their focus towards the aforementioned small, efficient chips. That ended up being a very smart move for them in the long run, as their line of portable processors are head and shoulders beyond anyone else's, currently.

[Mister Elf]

And a single-core 4.2GHz Power6 machine (IBM's base model) starts at above $5,000. Please justify paying that much for a single-core PowerMac and I'll buy.

(No I won't.)

[Lateralus]

For me, the worst thing to come from the switch was the revelation that most Mac users never had any clue about microprocessors. Or hardware in general, really.

I say that because before the switch was announced, the vast majority of Mac users were pro-PowerPC. And they were pro-PowerPC because Apple was pro-PowerPC. But when Apple announced the switch and did an information 180 for PR purposes, the vast majority of Mac users 180'd right alongside Apple. And from that point on, any discussion of PPC v x86 on a Mac messageboard degraded into a smattering of repeated Apple PR, FUD and general misinformation.

Meanwhile, the opinions of the true geeks who loved PowerPC through their own education never changed. And most PowerPC nerds are still fans of the architecture.

And no, I'm not attacking the pro-Intel people. I respect our resident x86 geeks for the same reasons I respect those who were encyclopedias of PPC information. What I'm getting at is that I always brushed off the 'sheep' attacks PC people made on Mac users for following Apple almost religiously. But when the switch happened, and the opinions of so many Mac users 180'd nearly instantly after decades of rallying with Apple against Intel and commodity hardware...

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I say that because before the switch was announced, the vast majority of Mac users were pro-PowerPC. And they were pro-PowerPC because Apple was pro-PowerPC. But when Apple announced the switch and did an information 180 for PR purposes, the vast majority of Mac users 180'd right alongside Apple. And from that point on, any discussion of PPC v x86 on a Mac messageboard degraded into a smattering of repeated Apple PR, FUD and general misinformation.

While that's certainly true, it's also true that the reasons that Apple stuck with the PPC architecture for so long were valid ones, and that the reasons Apple switched to x86 were also valid ones. I still recognize that PPC was in many ways the technically superior platform, but I also recognize that switching to x86 was a smart move for Apple in many ways. PPC has its advantages, but, for the time being at least, the advantages of x86 outweigh them.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

While that's certainly true, it's also true that the reasons that Apple stuck with the PPC architecture for so long were valid ones, and that the reasons Apple switched to x86 were also valid ones. I still recognize that PPC was in many ways the technically superior platform, but I also recognize that switching to x86 was a smart move for Apple in many ways. PPC has its advantages, but, for the time being at least, the advantages of x86 outweigh them.

I do have a beef with Apple over the switch. But it's not over the switch itself, it's over the way Apple chose to do it.

Mac OS X is very versatile when it comes to platform architecture, as evidenced by the fact that Leopard and Tiger execute wonderfully while being compiled for use on both x86 and PPC simultaneously. Hell, OpenStep, OS X's lineage, came from the 68k era.

Now, given that versatility, there's no reason why Apple couldn't have went with a dual-platform deployment; Intel for notebooks and other compact devices, and PPC where it shined at the time and where's it's still shining now; professional desktops, workstations and servers.

And it wouldn't exactly be unprecedented either; Sun offers Solaris and Solaris equipped hardware in both x86-64 and SPARC flavors. And OS X is arguably even more versatile than Solaris.

Had Apple gone dual-platform, the Mac market would have benefited from the best of two different processor families, with absolutely no inconvenience to the end user and little to no inconvenience to developers.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

For me, the worst thing to come from the switch was the revelation that most Mac users never had any clue about microprocessors. Or hardware in general, really.

I say that because before the switch was announced, the vast majority of Mac users were pro-PowerPC. And they were pro-PowerPC because Apple was pro-PowerPC. But when Apple announced the switch and did an information 180 for PR purposes, the vast majority of Mac users 180'd right alongside Apple. And from that point on, any discussion of PPC v x86 on a Mac messageboard degraded into a smattering of repeated Apple PR, FUD and general misinformation.

Meanwhile, the opinions of the true geeks who loved PowerPC through their own education never changed. And most PowerPC nerds are still fans of the architecture.

And no, I'm not attacking the pro-Intel people. I respect our resident x86 geeks for the same reasons I respect those who were encyclopedia's of PPC information. What I'm getting at is that I always brushed off the 'sheep' attacks PC people made on Mac users for following Apple almost religiously. But when the switch happened, and the opinions of so many Mac users 180'd nearly instantly after decades of rallying with Apple against Intel and commodity hardware...

Exactly; it was an emotional attachment, void of most logic. And it still is. I've sold thousands of Macs over the years, and it's pitched on emotion, which involves "coolness." The vast majority of people who buy either platform do so because they have an emotional attachment to their decision, and they frequently don't give a rat's you-know-what about the architecture, except for the operating system. One exception was the "Intel Inside" campaign, which caused many customers, especially first-timers, to ask if the machine they were looking at had Intel inside. They didn't have a clue as to what that meant, but a lot of consumers are gullible, so that's something they connected with when they made their decision. I sold PCs as well during the beginning of the Intel Inside campaign and it was sometimes a challenge to convert people because they made an emotional connection to the marketing and some salesperson trying to change their mind was suspect. If you go to an Apple store, any salesperson doing their job successfully rarely mentions technical stuff unless the customer brings it up first, or until close to the end of the presentation, when it's time to decide which model to purchase within a family of machines. They're pitching a lifestyle, and it isn't until later in the show that specs are presented, in order to help the customer determine which model is most appropriate for their lifestyle.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I do have a beef with Apple over the switch. But it's not over the switch itself, it's over the way Apple chose to do it.

Mac OS X is very versatile when it comes to platform architecture, as evidenced by the fact that Leopard and Tiger execute wonderfully while being compiled for use on both x86 and PPC simultaneously. Hell, OpenStep, OS X's lineage, came from the 68k era.

Now, given that versatility, there's no reason why Apple couldn't have went with a dual-platform deployment; Intel for notebooks and other compact devices, and PPC where it shined at the time and where's it's still shining now; professional desktops, workstations and servers.

And it wouldn't exactly be unprecedented either; Sun offers Solaris and Solaris equipped hardware in both x86-64 and SPARC flavors. And OS X is arguably even more versatile than Solaris.

Had Apple gone dual-platform, the Mac market would have benefited from the best of two different processor families, with absolutely no inconvenience to the end user and little to no inconvenience to developers.

Some good points. Apple, however, wasn't big enough to support both architectures at the beginning of the switch, and it would have hurt their margins, as they would have had to source smaller amounts of processors from both sides. They made the right decision, IMO, as their sales have consistently gone nowhere but up, and are projected to do so for a long time to come.

[nonhuman]

It would definitely be cool for Apple to have both PPC and x86 (and ARM!) processors simultaneously, but it could definitely introduce branding issues. How do you explain to the average user why they should choose the Mac Pro G6 (or whatever) over the Mac Pro Xeon? Or even more importantly, how do you explain to the average user why they can use Boot Camp or Parallels to run Windows on one MacBook but not on the other? Not to mention the brand confusion caused by abandoning one platform for another only to then resurrect the old platform, but only in certain cases.

I just don't think it would be reasonable for a company that produces consumer computers. Maybe if they had separate hardware lines for more tech-savvy markets, but I don't think that would be a good option for Apple. From a business and marketing perspective, I just don't think it makes sense for Apple to pursue a dual-platform strategy. Maybe if Steve decided to allow clones again (which, if handled properly, I still think could be a good thing) then it would be reasonable to see some PPC Mac clones as well as x86 Mac clones, but short of that I just don't think it will or should happen.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by OldManMac 

Some good points. Apple, however, wasn't big enough to support both architectures at the beginning of the switch, and it would have hurt their margins, as they would have had to source smaller amounts of processors from both sides. They made the right decision, IMO, as their sales have consistently gone nowhere but up, and are projected to do so for a long time to come.

We're generally on the same page I think.

One thing I do get caught up on, and many people make the assertion, is that the Intel switch directly correlated into increased sales. I honestly don't buy that.

Apple was beginning to explode at the time of the switch, and it was going to happen one way or another. The iPod halo effect turned out to be real, and it was making people pay attention to the company that made the shiny gadget that played all of their music and was the envy of everybody who cared about such things. And then, of course, there were other waves like iTunes and the iPhone.

I agree wholeheartedly with the assessment of average consumer mindset in your first post; They don't care about what's inside and never really have.

While I have absolutely no doubt that the switch to x86 helped Apple pull in long-time PC users for a number of reasons, the vast majority of people weren't affected by it one way or another. If Apple introduced notebooks tomorrow based on Freescale's latest low-power, dual-core offerings, I have every belief that Mac notebook sales would still continue to surge.

[Lateralus]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

It would definitely be cool for Apple to have both PPC and x86 (and ARM!) processors simultaneously, but it could definitely introduce branding issues. How do you explain to the average user why they should choose the Mac Pro G6 (or whatever) over the Mac Pro Xeon? Or even more importantly, how do you explain to the average user why they can use Boot Camp or Parallels to run Windows on one MacBook but not on the other? Not to mention the brand confusion caused by abandoning one platform for another only to then resurrect the old platform, but only in certain cases.

I just don't think it would be reasonable for a company that produces consumer computers. Maybe if they had separate hardware lines for more tech-savvy markets, but I don't think that would be a good option for Apple. From a business and marketing perspective, I just don't think it makes sense for Apple to pursue a dual-platform strategy. Maybe if Steve decided to allow clones again (which, if handled properly, I still think could be a good thing) then it would be reasonable to see some PPC Mac clones as well as x86 Mac clones, but short of that I just don't think it will or should happen.

I agree. Sorting out a dual-platform product strategy would have had its drawbacks. But I don't think they'd have been as large as they might sound.

I'm reminded of something Steve said during the G3 iMac era, and I'm paraphrasing; "In the future, people won't worry about deciding between different types of hardware, only between which color to get."

Oversimplification, perhaps. But for my purposes, it's a good example. Apple did such a tremendous job in developing technologies to make the transition smooth that it really goes to show... you wouldn't have to care which architecture powered your Mac. Because they would all look and feel the same.

But, yeah, I don't profess to have any easy answers to a dual platform strategy. I just think that Apple gave up more than it gained by not even trying to pursue one.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

One thing I do get caught up on, and many people make the assertion, is that the Intel switch directly correlated into increased sales. I honestly don't buy that.

I agree with you there...

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

If Apple introduced notebooks tomorrow based on Freescale's latest low-power, dual-core offerings, I have every belief that Mac notebook sales would still continue to surge.

...but I disagree with you here.

Sales didn't go up because they slapped an Intel processor into a Mac; they went up because of the ability to run Windows.

Seriously. Seasoned pros could flirt with Apple's sexy hardware while running Windows. And casual home users got the answer they wanted to hear when they asked a salesperson "Can I run my existing programs?". Even if they never actually used BootCamp or Parallels, just the fact that there was a safety net for their "switch" went a long, long way to win the hearts of many. The halo effect may have been there, but it certainly wouldn't have taken effect as fast, or at all, without such a reduced barrier of entry.

So while I agree that many people don't care what's driving the hardware, I do think they care what it can do, and the biggest selling point (for a general consumer) is directly related having an Intel processor; even ignoring the fact that it's a household name. So really, it depends where you draw the line on causality.

I'd be more inclined to agree with your statement if Freescale, or anyone else, had a fast, cheap RISC processor with a transparent x86 compatibility layer. There aren't any, and ironically, it's Intel that has the closest thing to it.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

Sales didn't go up because they slapped an Intel processor into a Mac; they went up because of the ability to run Windows.

Uhm, you do realize that there is a strong cause-effect relationship ?

-t

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Lateralus 

I agree. Sorting out a dual-platform product strategy would have had its drawbacks. But I don't think they'd have been as large as they might sound.

I'm reminded of something Steve said during the G3 iMac era, and I'm paraphrasing; "In the future, people won't worry about deciding between different types of hardware, only between which color to get."

Oversimplification, perhaps. But for my purposes, it's a good example.

But it's a good argument for not doing dual-platform — that puts a lot of emphasis on what architecture of processor is in the machine.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, you do realize that there is a strong cause-effect relationship ?

-t

Technically, yes. In terms of the perception of the average user, no.

Random Joe Windows User doesn't know that the reason the MacBook can run Windows while the iBook can't is because it's got an Intel processor, he just knows that it works.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Uhm, you do realize that there is a strong cause-effect relationship ?

Precisely the point I was making. One can claim that switching to Intel didn't increase Mac sales in and of itself, but you can't deny that running Windows increased the saleability of the platform. But the latter required the former. And hence my statement about causality later in my post.

Nonhuman gets it.