Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!  (Read 4061 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline toRus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Mar 2003
  • Posts: 122
    • Show only replies by toRus
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #14 from previous page: November 06, 2009, 09:17:53 PM »
Actually, Apple stayed with PPC because PPC was better than Intel/AMD/Cyrix chips. And at the time that really mattered. MacOSX might have been developed x86 compatible before the 2005 Intel transition/regression but mainly because "it could be done" rather than the superiority of the technology. The performance benefits came long after the G5 was introduced and the PPC project was abandoned. Apple have chosen their companion and has stayed loyal up to now. This offered many opportunities but also had many risks. Apple simply wanted out of the CPU business and motherboard design. Time (not just 5-10 years) will tell whether this was a wise decision.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 09:22:11 PM by toRus »
 

Offline Hammer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 1996
  • Country: 00
    • Show only replies by Hammer
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #15 on: November 06, 2009, 09:52:23 PM »
Quote from: toRus;528619

Actually, Apple stayed with PPC because PPC was better than Intel/AMD/Cyrix chips. (SNIP)

This was debunked by several benchmarks. Care to restart K8 Athlon 64 vs PowerPC 970 and K7 Athlon vs PowerPC G4 debate?
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 09:54:33 PM by Hammer »
Amiga 1200 PiStorm32-Emu68-RPI 4B 4GB.
Ryzen 9 7900X, DDR5-6000 64 GB, RTX 4080 16 GB PC.
 

Offline utri007

Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #16 on: November 06, 2009, 10:28:09 PM »
Just saying that PPC is best is useless comment :/ and still there is lots of benchmarks and results vary by who has made them and of course people want to point out those benchmarks that support his/her opinion.

This is not ppc vs. x86 thread, at least I hope so.
ACube Sam 440ep Flex 800mhz, 1gb ram and 240gb hd and OS4.1FE
A1200 Micronic tower, OS3.9, Apollo 060 66mhz, xPert Merlin, Delfina Lite and Micronic Scandy, 500Gb hd, 66mb ram, DVD-burner and WLAN.
A1200 desktop, OS3.9, Blizzard 060 66mhz, 66mb ram, Ide Fix Express with 160Gb HD and WLAN
A500 OS2.1, GVP+HD8 with 4mb ram, 1mb chip ram and 4gb HD
Commodore CDTV KS3.1, 1mb chip, 4mb fast ram and IDE HD
 

Offline cv643d

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 1197
    • Show only replies by cv643d
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #17 on: November 06, 2009, 10:32:20 PM »
I have a similar story why I avoid Apple.

Legend says Steve was at a computer show and watched the Amiga, he was suppoused to have said "colors, who needs colors?" when he saw Amiga 1000.
Amiga articles
"New shell. It was finished a while back, but I still see bugs, haha" - SSolie
 

Offline toRus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Mar 2003
  • Posts: 122
    • Show only replies by toRus
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #18 on: November 06, 2009, 11:34:46 PM »
Quote from: Hammer;528621
This was debunked by several benchmarks. Care to restart K8 Athlon 64 vs PowerPC 970 and K7 Athlon vs PowerPC G4 debate?


Benchmarks are just biased statistcs. And you do know what they say about statistics, don't you ? It's interesting how many people still interprete the G5 vs Pentium benchmark fiasco the wrong way.
Anyway, the PowerPC looked good but there was too much animosity between the partners. Apple failed to push it hard in the desktop, Motorola was about to restructure and IBM underestimated the Mac OSX momentum.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2009, 11:39:32 PM by toRus »
 

Offline Hell Labs

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 490
    • Show only replies by Hell Labs
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #19 on: November 07, 2009, 01:01:43 AM »
Quote from: cv643d;528632
I have a similar story why I avoid Apple.

Legend says Steve was at a computer show and watched the Amiga, he was supposed to have said "colors, who needs colors?" when he saw Amiga 1000.

And like most legends, It's a load of bullshit.

Apple were already making colour computers at the time of the Lisa and Macintosh. The reason the Lisa wasn't in colour was because the hardware engineers couldn't design out of a wet paper bag, And the Mac didn't because It was too costly and would use too much memory.

Remember, the mac was originally designed to sell for $1500 (Even with the very real apple tax, but a glorified pepsi salesman jacked it up even more!), and they had the disadvantage: No hippies had designed some custom chips they could use, They couldn't just manufacture chips in house like commodore did, etc. Plus, that superbowl advertisement was EXPENSIVE.

Not to mention the cost of ram in early 1984! $599.00 for 256KB. Insane.
A1200 Computer Combat. OS3.0. No accelerator, no fastram, mouse soon. And ebaying it.
 

Offline stefcep2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2007
  • Posts: 1467
    • Show only replies by stefcep2
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #20 on: November 07, 2009, 01:15:07 AM »
I think it was another "point of difference" that Apple had over x86, something that they could use to market against all the x86 clones, because the OS really wasn't something to harp on about at the time.

And they did that with all the "benchmarks" that Apple chose to prove that per mhz the PPC could beat a pentium.  Whether the benchmarks truthfully represented performance differences in the real world for the average user or were contrived tests that worked better on PPC architecture is another argument.  Jobs just had to run a few photoshop filters that worked faster on PPC to prove his point to the masses that PPCwas indeed faster.  Nowdays the hardware point of difference is largely aesthetic, which works better than  ever to get people to get a mac.
 

Offline B00tDisk

  • VIP / Donor - Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Dec 2002
  • Posts: 1670
    • Show only replies by B00tDisk
    • http://www.thedelversdungeon.com
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #21 on: November 07, 2009, 04:32:09 AM »
Quote from: persia;528566
CNN posted this video story yesterday that explains why Apple avoided Intel for so long.  It appears that when Steve Jobs was just starting up making computers in the garage he approached Andrew Grove for a discount on memory.  Andrew responded that they give discounts to large orders not to small companies like yours.  You are a nobody, why should I give you a discount.  That apparently stuck with Steve Jobs for a long time and that's why he went with IBM and PPC instead of Intel.  

So the who Intel versus PPC debate was not about endian-ness or features, it was about a bruised ego...

http://money.cnn.com/video/technology/2009/11/05/tm_steve_jobs_apple_ceo.fortune/


This should surprise nobody.  Jobs is a sociopath.
Back away from the EU-SSR!
 

Offline tone007

Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #22 on: November 07, 2009, 11:46:04 AM »
Quote from: Tripitaka;528571
I don't buy Intel, haven't done for a good few years. AMD chips tend to give more bang per buck and run cooler. Sure Intel may have the edge at the top end but I don't buy top-end chips, they are beyond the range of my wallet and seldom give anything close to value for money.

AMDs suck hardcore in laptops.  Definitely not cooler chips.
3 Commodore file cabinets, 2 Commodore USB turntables, 1 AmigaWorld beer mug
Alienware M14x i7 laptop running AmigaForever
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16867
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #23 on: November 07, 2009, 12:30:05 PM »
Quote from: tone007;528686
AMDs suck hardcore in laptops.  Definitely not cooler chips.

My Core2 Quad (Q9450), with the stock intel cooler reached a whopping 32 degrees (C) when using four separate instances of mencoder to convert a collection of different media files to mpeg-4 recently.

That's hardly hot running, is it?
int p; // A
 

Offline toRus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Join Date: Mar 2003
  • Posts: 122
    • Show only replies by toRus
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #24 on: November 07, 2009, 02:54:20 PM »
Quote from: stefcep2;528651

And they did that with all the "benchmarks" that Apple chose to prove that per mhz the PPC could beat a pentium.  Whether the benchmarks truthfully represented performance differences in the real world for the average user or were contrived tests that worked better on PPC architecture is another argument.  Jobs just had to run a few photoshop filters that worked faster on PPC to prove his point to the masses that PPCwas indeed faster.  Nowdays the hardware point of difference is largely aesthetic, which works better than  ever to get people to get a mac.


This is a practice x86 chipmakers do for over 2 decades. When the G5 came out, innocent x86 consumers complained because Apple's benchmarks didn't use Intel's heavily optimised compiler instead of gcc. They really thought their hardware was better than what it was in reality. Instead of questioning why their hardware was noticeably slower when not using Intel's C++/Fortran they blamed Apple (just if Intel's compilers were available in PowerPC or gcc wasn't already more optimised for x86 than ppc).
Intel has done so much false advertising (not only against other platforms but also aginst AMD) in the history of computing it's ridiculous. MMX/SSE were worse than 3DNow, let alone Altivec but prevailed and thus evolved because Intel pressed and used monopolistic practices. If using Altivec vs SSE benchmarks via Adobe filters Intel is guilty as well since most benchmarks and OS/application features depend on them today (even to a greater extent).
 

Offline dammy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 2828
    • Show only replies by dammy
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #25 on: November 07, 2009, 05:17:10 PM »
Quote from: toRus;528639

Anyway, the PowerPC looked good but there was too much animosity between the partners. Apple failed to push it hard in the desktop, Motorola was about to restructure and IBM underestimated the Mac OSX momentum.


FWIR, Jobs removed Apple from the AIM alliance as he revoked OS9 clone licenses.  That was the death for the PPC right there.  Motorola took a huge write off for their recently opened production line for PPC desktops (StarMax?) that was going to use OS9.  IIRC, Motorola took Apple off the priority list for CPU purchases.  IBM was not amused by Jobs' actions.
Dammy

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Arix-OS/414578091930728
Unless otherwise noted, I speak only for myself.
 

Offline cv643d

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 1197
    • Show only replies by cv643d
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #26 on: November 07, 2009, 05:23:22 PM »
Why do we care about this pathetic individual and his pathetic OS.

We Amigans knows better, with more development in AmigaOS it is going to crush OsX like an apple under an elephants toe.
Amiga articles
"New shell. It was finished a while back, but I still see bugs, haha" - SSolie
 

Offline haywirepc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2009
  • Posts: 1331
    • Show only replies by haywirepc
Re: Why Apple stayed with PPC so long!
« Reply #27 on: November 07, 2009, 06:14:03 PM »
Its more than being about a bruised ego. When you are a small company and you need some help from a supplier and they treat you this way, its some indication of the kind of relationship you may have with them going forward. Why would you support any supplier who treated you that way when you really needed the help?

After Apple took off, I don't blame him for saying screw intel now that we're a big player.
 
Motorola's willingness to work with them as a small startup was rewarded later for sure, thats business. If someone treats you like dirt why would you reward them with multi million dollar purchases later?

I'm no mac fan, but I think both Woz AND Jobs are brilliant. Apple went into the toilet when Jobs left, when he returned they were back with a vengence. Jobs then pushed the phones and other technologies, and returned them to a major player in the industry. Love him or hate him, he did that. His work on Next is more proof of his genius, he left apple and created a whole new platform that was very successful in a short time.
 
Next would eventually become Apple's new tech. I think it was great Irony that apple came begging Jobs to return and make Nextstation tech the new mac.
 
On the ego issues he has, I can forgive any man of his obvious business skill and technological brilliance a little ego. I met him a few years ago through a mutual friend, and had dinner with him and my friend.  I found him to be a great guy, yes he did seem to have a bit of an ego, but considering his accomplishments,that is to be expected. I really enjoyed meeting him and hearing some stories about mac and apple first hand. Interestingly, I mentioned my love of the amiga platform, and he told me that he and most at apple envied the custom chips and capability of the early amiga.
 
Like most believe, he said amiga had a huge advantage early on but did not take full advantage of it. I remember he said they dropped the ball after that advantage began to slip and did not upgrade the chips as fast as they should. He said apple considered Amiga a larger threat to them than ibm/pc's because of the custom chips and the multitasking os.
 
When I told him I always chose amiga over mac when buying a new computer, he said "I forgive you." Next, he took my business card before dinner was over. The following week I got a package in the mail, it was
a mac powerbook with no note or anything. I remember he kept saying over dinner if I used a mac for awhile I would never want to use another platform. I tried the powerbook for awhile, then gave it away to a friend.
 
I still prefer amiga. :)

Steven