Originally Posted By: d00df00d
False. It was economy-of-scale. The PowerPC architecture was to expensive to continue to develop and keep competitive when Intel was churning out such a huge number of x86 chips for the same market.
In fact, most people I know -- including die-hard PC fans -- think that the most compelling reason to buy a Mac died when they went x86.
You might want to do some research before making such categorical claims.
Quote:
Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In particular, he cited the performance per watt projections in the roadmap provided by Intel. This is an especially important consideration in laptop design, which affects the hours of use per battery charge.
In June 2003, Jobs had introduced Macs based on the PowerPC G5 processor and promised that within a year the clock speed of the part would be up to 3 GHz. Two years later, 3 GHz G5s were still not available, and rumors continued that IBM's low yields on the POWER4-derived chip were to blame. Further, the heat produced by the chip proved an obstacle to deploying it in a laptop computer, which had become the fastest growing segment of the personal computer industry.
Some observers were surprised that Apple had not made a deal with AMD, which has in recent years become a strong competitor to Intel. AMD had recently released its competitive 64-bit Opteron platform,[8][9] and by moving straight to x86-64 Apple would have had one less architecture transition (albeit a more complex one than either ppc -> x86 or x86 -> x86-64). However, Apple's decision may have been made in part based on power consumption and battery life concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_transition
Quote:
As for why Apple was making the shift, Jobs pointed both to past problems and to the PowerPC road map, which he said won't deliver enough performance at the low-power usages needed for powerful notebooks....Things weren't looking better in the coming months, Jobs said, saying that IBM's PowerPC road map would only deliver about a fifth the performance.
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-throws-the-switch%2C-aligns-with-Intel/2100-1014_3-5733756.html#ixzz11mq1zpjZ
Quote:
Jobs explanation for the move? Apple, which has been maintaining a feature—complete version of OS X for Intel chips—a project code-named Marklar—in secret for some time, could not build the machines it wanted with IBM PowerPC chips inside, given their power consumption. Intel won out, he said, on watts.
"We have a good relationship with IBM. They've got a product roadmap. Today the products are really good. But as we look out into the future ... we can envision some awesome products we want to build. Intels processor roadmap aligns with our vision more than others," Jobs said in an interview broadcast on CNBC shortly after his keynote ended.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/New-Macs-Intel-Inside/
Enough quotes for ya?
False. It was economy-of-scale. The PowerPC architecture was to expensive to continue to develop and keep competitive when Intel was churning out such a huge number of x86 chips for the same market.
In fact, most people I know -- including die-hard PC fans -- think that the most compelling reason to buy a Mac died when they went x86.
You might want to do some research before making such categorical claims.
Quote:
Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In particular, he cited the performance per watt projections in the roadmap provided by Intel. This is an especially important consideration in laptop design, which affects the hours of use per battery charge.
In June 2003, Jobs had introduced Macs based on the PowerPC G5 processor and promised that within a year the clock speed of the part would be up to 3 GHz. Two years later, 3 GHz G5s were still not available, and rumors continued that IBM's low yields on the POWER4-derived chip were to blame. Further, the heat produced by the chip proved an obstacle to deploying it in a laptop computer, which had become the fastest growing segment of the personal computer industry.
Some observers were surprised that Apple had not made a deal with AMD, which has in recent years become a strong competitor to Intel. AMD had recently released its competitive 64-bit Opteron platform,[8][9] and by moving straight to x86-64 Apple would have had one less architecture transition (albeit a more complex one than either ppc -> x86 or x86 -> x86-64). However, Apple's decision may have been made in part based on power consumption and battery life concerns.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_transition
Quote:
As for why Apple was making the shift, Jobs pointed both to past problems and to the PowerPC road map, which he said won't deliver enough performance at the low-power usages needed for powerful notebooks....Things weren't looking better in the coming months, Jobs said, saying that IBM's PowerPC road map would only deliver about a fifth the performance.
http://news.cnet.com/Apple-throws-the-switch%2C-aligns-with-Intel/2100-1014_3-5733756.html#ixzz11mq1zpjZ
Quote:
Jobs explanation for the move? Apple, which has been maintaining a feature—complete version of OS X for Intel chips—a project code-named Marklar—in secret for some time, could not build the machines it wanted with IBM PowerPC chips inside, given their power consumption. Intel won out, he said, on watts.
"We have a good relationship with IBM. They've got a product roadmap. Today the products are really good. But as we look out into the future ... we can envision some awesome products we want to build. Intels processor roadmap aligns with our vision more than others," Jobs said in an interview broadcast on CNBC shortly after his keynote ended.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Apple/New-Macs-Intel-Inside/
Enough quotes for ya?
