What is Digg?49 Comments
- collywolly, on 10/12/2007, -1/+40You should try kissing a girl sometime......
- NSResponder, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32At the time, he was right. SInce that time, Intel brought out a new generation of processors, and IBM let the PPC stagnate.
-jcr - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -1/+27This is the funniest bit: "Imagine Steve Jobs standing in a room and seeing an Apple-branded machine running Windows natively. Yup - that's what I thought. Jobs would rather sell Pixar to Disney than see that."
The author doesn't compare the two platforms, admitting he is in "no position to argue the technical merits of such a switch." Instead he focuses on these four points:
1. Apple can't compete with Microsoft on price.
2. No manufacturer will threaten their Windows PC business by building Apple clones.
3. Porting to x86 would be admitting that the PowerPC isn't as good as they advertised.
4. Jobs won't want to see Apple computers running Windows. - ScornForSega, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25@knowall
I'd buy a copy of OSX in a hearbeat if I could choose my own hardware. - jangelo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15"OS X on x86" could mean either that (selling OS X for a generic x86) or shifting the platform into x86.
- wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think we're a clone now.
- threepio, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14(sung to the tune of "I think we're alone now" - which was Tommy James and the Shondells - I think...)
I think we're a clone now
There doesn't seem to be any virii aro-ound.
I think we're a clone now (a clone no-ow)
The spinning of our discs is the only so-ound.
Look at the waaaaaay
My OS-es run together
Bootcamp to-da-ay
Core 2 Duo runs hell bent for leather!
It's now runnin just as fast as it ca-aaaan,
marketshare's no longer in the can,
Goin' to make the switch,
upgradin' to Vista's a bitch,
So now I've got a MacBook and you know I really like it but I'll say
I think we're a clone now...
Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, tip your veal, try the waitress. - willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Yep.
If anybod except Apple talks about it, its a stupid idea.
If Apple DOES it, it must be the BEST IDEA EVER - jangelo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It's all about timing! :)
- Kittyflipping, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11As a long time PC user I can honestly say that putting OS X on my PC has been about the best thing I have ever experienced. Ok, not really, but it's been good enough for me to decide that my next computer will be a Mac.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"Jobs would rather sell Pixar to Disney than see that."
- BrainInAJar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"but it's been good enough for me to decide that my next computer will be a Mac."
and therein lies the real benefit to the switch. Make tiger a pain, but not impossible, to install on commodity PC's, then a year or two later release a new version of OSX that uses the DRM chip enough that you can't hack it...
I'd be suprised if it wasn't their advertising strategy all along - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Hindsight is always 20/20 as they say. This column is coming from the perspective of Apple releasing OSX to OEM's which indeed would have been stupid.
- kelly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The origional author was referring to making WIndows available for commodity PCs... not just for x86/Intel.
He was right then with his conclusion as much as he would be right if holding the opinion now. - UGM2099, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9As a long time Mac user I can honestly sat putting an Intel processor in a Mac has been about the best thing I have ever experienced.
- carbona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Although this was an interesting read, much of it really isn't applicable since the original article was premised on an x86 version of OS X being available to any brand of x86 hardware. One might do better to see the original article as explaining why Apple will probably never allow OS X to run on any hardware platforms but their own.
- skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3OSX (NeXTSTEP/Openstep) has been on x86 for years. It was just a question of whether it would ever get released.
- StarManta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+418 months ago I'd have all but stabbed you for suggesting I'd be running an Intel machine today, and running Windows programs on it too.
But, I'm glad I finally got to play HL2.... - h00ligan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I always love articles talking about the most stupid thing so and so could have done that use the word stupidest.
morons. - gildude, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6No, the stupiest thing they could do is ship a virus on their Video iPods. Oh, wait, they already did that...
- omarqaz7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@xxrazor
oh my god you guys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm - AceTracer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He's entirely right, developing OS X for non-Apple PCs is the stupidest business decision Apple could do. Apple makes 90% of their profit from hardware sales, if they did this they would basically be cannibalizing their bread and butter.
So yes, it -is- the stupidest thing Apple could do. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"IBM let the Power PC platform go to hell". Take a look at the Xbox 360. PowerPC doesn't seem to suck too much at the moment.
That said, IBM were stupid to lag behind x86 for long enough to push Apple to move away.
I see no reason why Apple couldn't have moved to SPARC, or some other architecture, instead of x86 - Perhaps they wanted Windows compatibility, or perhaps the low price of x86 lured them to go that way. - typecase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Already been done:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4453163912742512680 - jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I still think it was a stupid idea. They've had nothing but trouble since, with heat and such... and it was one less reason for me to save up money and buy a PowerBook (MacBook)
- DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Take a look at the Xbox 360. PowerPC doesn't seem to suck too much at the moment."
Tell me, in 2-4 years, at what speed will the XBox 360 PPC CPU run?
Answer: the same speed as today.
Microsoft paid IBM billions to have 3Ghz PPCs before anyone else. Apple already invested too much money in the PPC alliance, and IBM was asking for more to get past 3Ghz and get a G5 caliber PPC that could be put inside a PowerBook.
The PPC platform hit several walls in performance over the years, and over and over PPC got stuck at the same rating for long periods of time. This kind of thing don't matter much for a video-game console CPU, but it sure makes a difference when it comes to personal computers.
Apple doesn't have to beg or pay intel so that they make viable desktop and notebook CPUs, because that's intel's core business.
Microsoft chose the PPC for strategical reasons. This way they could avoid having to chose between intel or AMD, and it's a way to make sure people won't be able install Windows on it. - aurifex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kind of on par with that popular science article back 50 years ago stating that computers MAY weigh less than 100 pounds in the future.
- mattp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I remember when Dvorak prophecied the switch in an old issue of PC Mag. I didn't think such thing was possible, but obviously I was wrong.
- redxii, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10Microsoft making their OS run on any x86 hardware was the stupidest thing they could do. They don't make very much money from it.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3lol I just know the Tiffany remix.
- jbella, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Are you kidding me? Are you seriously saying that the Macbook Pro is only 20% faster on average than the Powerbook G4 that preceded it?
I can tell you from firsthand experience that, at least for what I do (java development), a macbook is much faster. To say that I got a 500% increase in performance would not be an exaggeration. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Tell me, in 2-4 years, at what speed will the XBox 360 PPC CPU run?
Answer: the same speed as today."
It's a console. I don't even know what your point is there - consoles are always far behind PCs at the end of their lifetime.
"Microsoft paid IBM billions to have 3Ghz PPCs before anyone else." I doubt that, seeing as that the development of the Cell - something new, not just faster - cost $400m.
"Apple already invested too much money in the PPC alliance, and IBM was asking for more to get past 3Ghz and get a G5 caliber PPC that could be put inside a PowerBook." You should notice that I blame IBM for that, not Apple.
"This way they could avoid having to chose between intel or AMD", no, choice is a Good Thing.
"it's a way to make sure people won't be able install Windows on it.", Linux is available for PowerPC. - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, that's how Apple haters behave. They see some negative news about Apple, and then they try to spam it on every other article they can, using some convoluted logic to try to link the two stories.
- francphysic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah x86 is faster then PPC. I'm sure that's why the 3 fastest supercomputers in the world all use PPC.
The fact of matter is IBM chose to focus more on consoles and servers and left Apple on the backburner. Apple chose Intel because Intel specializes more in desktops then IBM. - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Arghh... Of course I meant 360, not 380...
- polyfrolic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I agree 100%. In fact I can guarantee Apple were planning this move for 18 months before they announced it. They were not using the best and fastest chips for many of their lineup. People seem to forget that for 18 months before the actual switch there were dual core Motorola laptop chips available that would ahve doubled the speed of Apples laptops. It is very telling that the Apple lineup only got an average of a 20% speed increase from machine to machine when they actually DID release Intel versions of the machines. 20% is the same speed increase that you would expect year on year for the typical IBM Power chip. We did not get a super fast chip with the switch, we got the same exact speed, and in the case of laptops a slower system than we would have if Jobs had not "Spat the Dummy". For the privilage of going Intel we get switching problems, a pile of obsolete machines and Laptops that "Roast Your Nuts".
Don't forget that Macs had to also loose 64 bit support for a while.
Yes more people are buying Macs. But the Mac fanatics have memories as short as a bottom feeding minnow. Every increase in sales had already been predicted before any announcement to go Intel. In fact last year hit a real Lul in sales because no one in their right mind would purchase an obsolete machine. WHen you have a bad year, and then go back to the sales you had before that year, your sales figures are going to look like they had an impressive jump. In fact I expected more Macs to sell this year.
Before someone points out that their campus has 80% Macs... America is no longer the largest market in the world. The world is a huge place that buys a lot of PCs. Macs are almost a memory outside USA. - digga, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Wow, that's clever... linking two digg stories together. Bravo!
- xxrazor, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@redxii
then why the hell is bill gates so rich? - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"It's a console. I don't even know what your point is there - consoles are always far behind PCs at the end of their lifetime."
Duh! this IS my point... The PPC may not suck for a console, but for a PC it's another matter...
"I doubt that, seeing as that the development of the Cell - something new, not just faster - cost $400m."
Whatever, make that millions instead of billions. It's still not a trivial amount. Apple invested too much already for a chip that kept hitting performance walls time after time.
"You should notice that I blame IBM for that, not Apple."
That must be why you can't see my point as I'm trying to explain why Apple did the switch and why the PPC wasn't the right CPU for them anymore.
"no, choice is a Good Thing." Sure choice is a good thing, but for a console, you have to settle on only one CPU supplier. If MS chose AMD for the 380, it would have pissed off intel, and vice-versa. By chosing the PPC they avoid having to play this game.
"Linux is available for PowerPC."
Linux is not Windows...
Anyway maybe we're both saying the same thing and just arguing on semantics, but I take issue when someone use consoles to say that the PPC was a good thing after all and Apple shouldn't have switch, and this is how I interpreted your statement. - Wootery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Apple chose Intel because Intel specializes more in...", that sounds rather like "it's designed to..." to me.
Post something that actually means something, like performance or power-consumption, and I won't be leaning on the red thumb. - francphysic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@Wootery
That's the thing though. It has little to do with performance and more to do with politics. Before dual-cores came out PPC and x86 were very competative with each other. Right now they advertise how the new Intel processors are faster then IBM but the G5's and G4's were single core. IBM was and is perfectly capable of making multicore processors but they just weren't doing it for Apple because they were concentratiing on consoles. Intel is a PC company. Apple is a PC (as in personal computer). They wouldn't be left behind if they went with Intel.
http://trollaxor.com/text/why_apple_really_ditched_powerpc.html - DelMonte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1" It is very telling that the Apple lineup only got an average of a 20% speed increase from machine to machine when they actually DID release Intel versions of the machines."
Hahahahaha! Good one! You should've put a "/sarcasm" tag because I was sure you were serious about this! - spoonard, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Switching to x86 was a smarter thing for Apple to do because IBM let the Power PC platform go to hell. Now Intel and AMD are mopping the floor with IBM's PPC chips. AMD/Intel is just faster at this point in time and if Apple wants to stay competative then they have to switch platforms to the faster one or they see PC's outperforming them in every application as was the case about a year ago. Now they use Core2Duo chips and are very competative again. Software can only be optimized to run so well on slower hardware. Eventually you have to switch or you lose your edge.
- JeffH, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5@RadiantBeing
the author was completely right on those points. Apple can't compete with PC OEMs on pricing still (though it has gotten a lot better. No PC OEM, even if it was offered would probably offer OSX on their PCs in fear that Microsoft would punish them (and they would). Apple DID admit PPC was inferior, after years upon years upon years of telling us otherwise (the G5 was only the nail in the coffin, x86 had been better for ages). And I don't think Jobs ever wanted Macs to run Windows, I imagine greed got the best of him when he realized they could reach a MUCH bigger market by allowing Windows on Macs. - Bootes, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1You have to open one of the text files and change the resolution of something on the Mac version. I'll zip a working Mac one when I get home to my Powerbook. :)
Game is great by the way. :) - Sport73, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0"Imagine Steve Jobs standing in a room and seeing an Apple-branded machine running Windows natively. Yup - that's what I thought. Jobs would rather sell Pixar to Disney than see that."
We should continue to follow this guy's commentary. He's OPPOSITE man. Whatever he says should not come true will. Now, if Jeff Adkins would just come out and say that the iPhone WON'T be released next week... - Kittyflipping, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2"...there doesn't seem to be any one a-roun-d"
no no, it's "There's always two of me just a-hangin' around" - knowall, on 10/12/2007, -21/+10This is inaccurate.
OS X on x86 meant OS X sold to run on generic x86... which is still not a commercial option and many would still argue its the "stupidest thing Apple could do"
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is