We're probably getting off-topic here, but I agree with Digiman. It's true that Macs used off-the-shelf parts before the switch (though that goes all the way back to the original 128K Macintosh, so I don't see it as any kind of "betrayal" of unstated principles,) but the CPU is rather a key component of a computer, and for the first two incarnations, the Mac had a CPU that was as nice as anything else about the computer, inside or out.
Was a key component, back when operating systems and applications used large amounts of assembler. Now it's a commodity component like anything else, you use the CPU that makes the most sense for the hardware you are building, not because it is a particular family; the software that will run on it can always be recompiled for your target.
Yes, there were probably solid business reasons for the switch,
Yes, that being that Motorola then IBM could not compete in either performance or cost with the relentless advances being made over on the intel side. Intel macs didn't just appear; intel builds of OSX are as old as their PPC counterparts, just kept under wraps for several years. Apple could see the writing on the wall for desktop PPC way back then and wanted to make sure they had a clean exit strategy. Apple stuck with PPC for as long as it was feasible and not a second longer. If anything, given hindsight, I am a bit surprised they never jumped sooner, considering they already had the OS ready.
It's no surprise either that they made the move to ARM for portable devices so easily too - they obviously put a fair bit of effort into making sure that OSX was platform-independent. Their OS team could probably compile it for MIPS if they were bored enough. Again, the family of CPU doesn't really matter these days - it's whatever is best for the device you are building.
but the fact remains that x86 is just plain ugly, and the only reason it's faster is because of all the revenue that can be poured back into R&D on it.
It's 2011, not 1992. I used to hate x86 too. That's all it really was, just hate for the sake of it. The truth is that like it or not, the "x86" has risen above every reasonable
technical criticism that's ever been levelled against it. First it was too slow and would never survive the RISC revolution. Which it did, just fine. Turned out that all the main architectural features of RISC don't actually require a reduced instruction set in order to implement. Then it was all "it will never survive the 64-bit revolution". Erm no, if anything, it's the most popular 64-bit platform in existence, likewise the most popular multi-core platform. Then it was "too power hungry" but again, in performance per watt it's holding it's own just fine, certainly a lot better than the last PPCs that saw desktop use. Of course, ARM are still better at this game, and that's why they are used so extensively for mobile devices. However, if an x86 part with superior performance per watt and cost appeared, most hardware vendors wouldn't care about switching because, again, today CPUs are just another system component and the system software can be recompiled. The fact that for most mobile devices the rest of the software base tends to be Java based should give you some idea just how little people care about the real CPU these days.
You can get a more powerful machine for cheaper with x86, yes,
Which is what the vast majority of consumers want and hence what any business that wants market share will aim for.
but for those of us whose horsepower needs are still around what a high-end G4 or a G5 can provide, it's still nice to know that there are computers that are actually nice under the hood.
You should probably look up current x64 designs rather than thinking back to your 386-era days. There's very little not to like about them. They are clean, rational and well thought out designs. The fact that they can still run code designed for 386 era devices whilst being so radically different is a testament to how well engineered they really are.
So, ugly? Hardly.
