Why hasn't Apple switched to x86?

[ZaneNBK]

What's the purpose of sticking with PowerPC? Most of the hardware in Apples is the same hardware used in x86 machine. Their stubborn refusal to switch platforms is costing them SOOO much money, both in increased costs and decreased sales. The primary reasons people buy macs are:

1) Style
2) Ease of Use (which I consider a myth now)/Software

They could easy be doing the same designs with x86 systems and sell them with OSX (or whatever the latest version is). The systems they sell would be cheaper and they could also run windows and x86 Linux. They'd instantly open themselves up to so many more sales due to the increased compatibility.

I seriously doubt ANYONE buys an Apple because it's a PowerPC (at least they haven't for a LOOONG time). So what am I missing here?

Bastards.

 

[Beau]

The PowerPC chip is actually a very good chip. Very robust, very powerful, low power consumption.

 

[Lucky]

Just got a G4 by mail today. Goddamm it has a sexy case. Unfortunately I didnt know it only takes USB keyboards, and the cheapest Mac USB keyboard at my local shop is $65! :disgust::Q

edit: anyone know if a USB keyboard designed for PC's will work on a mac? They shop said they use different connections for a mac.

 

[ZaneNBK]

The PowerPC may be a "good" chip, but it's still nowhere near as good as the latest Intel/AMD offerings (except perhaps in certain rigid circumstances) and hasn't been for a long time. Especially from a price/peformance perspective.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: ZaneNBK
The PowerPC may be a "good" chip, but it's still nowhere near as good as the latest Intel/AMD offerings (except perhaps in certain rigid circumstances) and hasn't been for a long time. Especially from a price/peformance perspective.

Price/Performance may be the only place where you can compare the two types of chips.

 

[ZaneNBK]

Originally posted by: Beau6183Price/Performance may be the only place where you can compare the two types of chips.

No. You can compare the chips performance (Intel/AMD wins there in all but certain rigid circumstances) and you can compare their price/performance.

How else would you compare them? Does the PowerPC sing you songs or give you backrubs?

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: ZaneNBK

Originally posted by: Beau6183Price/Performance may be the only place where you can compare the two types of chips.

No. You can compare the chips performance (Intel/AMD wins there in all but certain rigid circumstances) and you can compare their price/performance.

How else would you compare them? Does the PowerPC sing you songs or give you backrubs?

They run different types of processes, have different features, and are for completely different platforms. How can you reasonably compare the performance of one to another without having an equal something?

 

[ggavinmoss]

Originally posted by: ZaneNBK
What's the purpose of sticking with PowerPC? Most of the hardware in Apples is the same hardware used in x86 machine. Their stubborn refusal to switch platforms is costing them SOOO much money, both in increased costs and decreased sales. The primary reasons people buy macs are:

1) Style
2) Ease of Use (which I consider a myth now)/Software

They could easy be doing the same designs with x86 systems and sell them with OSX (or whatever the latest version is). The systems they sell would be cheaper and they could also run windows and x86 Linux. They'd instantly open themselves up to so many more sales due to the increased compatibility.

I seriously doubt ANYONE buys an Apple because it's a PowerPC (at least they haven't for a LOOONG time). So what am I missing here?

Bastards.

It's where their profit is...

-geoff

 

[rudder]

I always wondered why the even bothered building computers. Sure they have a cool look, but they are just like any other computer underneath. You would think to compete with microsoft, Apple would port their OS or something and concrentrate on that instead of building money losing sleek looking computers.

 

[hoihtah]

do you understand the difference between risc processors and cisc processors?

technologically speaking risc's are superior.

while i don't mind apple holding on to powerpc processors...
i do think that eventually they'll port OSX to x86 platform.

there are many rumors about Apple and AMD talking to make this possible.

In the mean time... i don't mind keeping 2 machines at home.

 

[ZaneNBK]

Originally posted by: Beau6183

They run different types of processes, have different features, and are for completely different platforms. How can you reasonably compare the performance of one to another without having an equal something?

They run very similar processes. Most/all Mac software (or it's equivilant) is available on the PC. It runs faster on the PC. (Except, as I stated before, in some very rigid circumstances with a few applications) So, regardless of wether or not they are different platforms and have different features, if they can both do the same thing (run the same software) and one runs it better than the other and is cheaper then I think the the conclusion I've made is very logical.

If the only way to compare things is to have them be equal to each other then what's the purpose of comparing?

 

[ZaneNBK]

Originally posted by: ggavinmossIt's where their profit is...

Yes, but selling 3x's the machine at 10% markup (for style and OS) is more profitable than selling as many machines as they do at their current level with a 20% markup. Of course I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass but I am assuming that their market for an x86 Mac would be large enough to make up for some of the gouging they do.

People would still buy Mac peripherals because of the style and the branding.

 

[Beau]

Originally posted by: ZaneNBK
They run very similar processes. Most/all Mac software (or it's equivilant) is available on the PC. It runs faster on the PC. (Except, as I stated before, in some very rigid circumstances with a few applications) So, regardless of wether or not they are different platforms and have different features, if they can both do the same thing (run the same software) and one runs it better than the other and is cheaper then I think the the conclusion I've made is very logical.

If the only way to compare things is to have them be equal to each other then what's the purpose of comparing?

Performance of software can be attributed to many things, not just processor type. Besides, photoshop runs about the same on my 1Ghz G4 as it does on my 1.8 athlon (work machines), so wouldn't that indicate that the Mac processor does it better because it offers the same performance at a lower clock speed?

 

[Heifetz]

There are various reasons for them to stick to their own platform. First, they can't simply just port their os to support x86 systems easily just because of the amount of hardware compatibility they'll need to add to their OS. They'll need to write new drivers to support the plethera of hardware for x86 that is out there. By staying with their own platform, they control the hardware and the specs, and that makes it a lot easier in terms of compatibility. Its similiar to why games on an xbox, or ps2 works so well, because they only have one hardware to support and they can take advantage of all its features.

Also, how much money do you think Apple will make if they only sold their OS software? They're not even close to the size of MS so they can't leverage their user base. I'm sure their propietary hardware has fat margins and contribute a huge percentage to their total revenue. They simply cannot compete in the x86 arena. Thats why they have to keep their hardware specs closed so they can control it and not have it turn into a commodity.

Heifetz

 

[hoihtah]

i think you're missing the point here.

do some search on pro's and con's of risc and cisc processors.

and tell me that if apple had started with cisc... they'd be where they are right now.



risc vs cisc
scsi vs ide
firewire vs usb
lcd vs crt

do you see a pattern here?

 

[ZaneNBK]

Originally posted by: hoihtah
do you understand the difference between risc processors and cisc processors?

technologically speaking risc's are superior.

while i don't mind apple holding on to powerpc processors...
i do think that eventually they'll port OSX to x86 platform.

there are many rumors about Apple and AMD talking to make this possible.

In the mean time... i don't mind keeping 2 machines at home.

Yes, I do understand the difference. But there is SOO much more money being poured into CISC R&D by Intel and AMD that there's no way IBM & Apple can keep up from a price/performance (or even performance) standpoint. It doesn't matter if "xyz" technology is more efficient if "abc" technology is actually more productive. (1 athlete moving furniture may be better than 1 old lady moving furniture but 10 old ladies are faster than 1 athlete)

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Apple isn't losing money because of "increased costs" because Apple doesn't have to pay much for their components. Chances are Apple pays less for PowerPC processors than Dell pays for Intel processors. Couple that with the fact that Apple charges a shiatload of money for their computers and you have the highest margins in the computer industry. There is absolutely no point in Apple porting OS X to x86. However, if Apple could make an x86 OS X that is 100% compatible with Windows and runs Windows apps better than Windows boxes, then you might have a point.

 

[Heifetz]

Risc vs Cisc debate is irrelevant when comparing Apple's performance against a PC's performance because the CPU performance of PCs have far surpassed those of Apple's. The increase in clock rate has more than made up for the reduced instruction advantage that Apple has. Also, the newer cpus have improved on their feature set to make them much more efficient in using their clock cycles. A 1.6A p4 chip oced will blow any apple cpu away.


Heifetz

 

[ZaneNBK]

Originally posted by: Beau6183
Performance of software can be attributed to many things, not just processor type. Besides, photoshop runs about the same on my 1Ghz G4 as it does on my 1.8 athlon (work machines), so wouldn't that indicate that the Mac processor does it better because it offers the same performance at a lower clock speed?

It "appears" to run the same. No doubt the difference isn't perceptible because you're not timing and because it's already so fast on the slower processor that any speed increase isn't noticble to the human eye. That's like saying "Copying files is just as fast on my 486 as it is on my Athlon 2200+, so wouldn't that make the 486 better since it's a lower clockspeed?".

First, off, I never compared clockspeed. Clockspeed isn't even a good indicator of performance in the x86 world anymore and it doesn't mean ANYTHING when comparing between platforms. At most clockspeed comparisons could be efficiency comparisons. For the purproses of my argument I'm comparing the fastest PPC vs. the fastest x86 for both performance and price (seperately and together).

Secondly, if a slower chip meets your needs, the go with the slower chip. But a slower x86 chip would evidentally meet your needs and be cheaper as well.

 

[Beau]

Then why don't you through some numbers and specs out to put some proof behind your claims?

 

[hoihtah]

(1 athlete moving furniture may be better than 1 old lady moving furniture but 10 old ladies are faster than 1 athlete)

it's quite ironic that you used that analogy.


that's the whole argument that supports risc.

not clock cycle or how fast the cpu is... or your athlete is.
but how the process is done. (how the work gets distributed between 10)

 

[ZaneNBK]

Originally posted by: hoihtah
i think you're missing the point here.

do some search on pro's and con's of risc and cisc processors.

and tell me that if apple had started with cisc... they'd be where they are right now.



risc vs cisc
scsi vs ide
firewire vs usb
lcd vs crt

do you see a pattern here?

No, you're missing the point. I'm not saying "Why didn't Apple start with CISC chips?" I'm saying, "Why haven't they changed? The PPC is holding them back."

SCSI vs. IDE, Firewire vs. USB and LCD vs. CRT debates hold absolutely no similarities to RISC vs. CISC. I'm not going clarify because that would take too much time and this is NOT a RISC vs. CISC debate.

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Also, the newer cpus have improved on their feature set to make them much more efficient in using their clock cycles

Who told you that, an Intel exec? Your arguement is like saying, "My Honda S2000 is better than your Mercedes E320 because it's faster." The fact of the matter is that Macs are still the best at what they're designed to do. Apple's a niche computer company.

 

[ZaneNBK]

Originally posted by: hoihtah
(1 athlete moving furniture may be better than 1 old lady moving furniture but 10 old ladies are faster than 1 athlete)

it's quite ironic that you used that analogy.


that's the whole argument that supports risc.

not clock cycle or how fast the cpu is... or your athlete is.
but how the process is done. (how the work gets distributed between 10)

Again. This isn't RISC vs. CISC debate.

 

[hoihtah]

those comparisons that i've listed... was to demonstrate that there's a pattern or a system that apple goes by.

when computers were measured up by performance/price,
apple decided to bring something else into the mix.

better technology & user-minded technology.

i'd agree with you, in that PPC's development has been much slower than Intel or AMD's.

but i'd rather see them develop on risc processors than for them to make that jump.

before i said that i'd like to see them port osx to x86.
but if that'd mean that they'll stop supporting PPC... i'm not sure if i'd want that.