Would apple have been a great competitor if it had bailed on PPC?

Status
Not open for further replies.
OSX-Devlinite

OSX-Devlinite

Registered
What do you guys think? Would Apple have had much more success if it supported the x86 architecture and simply patented it's unique styles? Like the Imac or the cube...

I think the benefits would have been rampant.

1. Less costing parts = cheaper macs = higher demands.

2. OSX would have been a great competitor vs MS Windows.

3. Apple would have had more support from software companies (drivers/applications)

4. More cpu choices in apples hands.

5. No need for Motorola.
 
1. This is true
2. It is
3. No
4. Yes, but likely they would have stuck with one manufacturer
5. Apple chose to use Motorola, it wasn't forced on them

If you're talking about the ability to run Mac OS X on a self-built PC, drivers would suddenly be a problem, and hardware sales would instantly drop...no good move for Apple...
 
If you were anyone else, I would argue with you. Since you're the same troll who keeps popping his head up here, I'm not going to say anything.
 
Would Wintel/Amd have been a great competitor if it had moved on PPC?

What do you guys think? Would Wintel/Amd have had much more success if it supported the PPC architecture and simply patented their unique styles? Like the Windows or the HT...

I think the benefits would have been rampant.

1. Less costing parts = cheaper computers = higher demands.

2. Windows would have been a great competitor vs OS X.

3. M$ would have had much better quality support from software and hardware companies (drivers/applications)

4. More culture choices in Wintel/Amd hands.

5. No need for the Dark Side.
 
Just swapping out the CPU won't make Mac systems cheaper all of a sudden. There are other components that fill up the bill and Apple is notorious for over charging on such components. You can argue quality and "you get what you pay for" all you want, it's the same components as off-the-shelf parts and they break down just as often as the generic stuff. There's a reason why Macs are expensive compared to PCs, and it's not because they cost more to produce.

Support from software developers? Seriously, what is missing? Apple themselves develop plenty of professional software, they also have Adobe and Macromedia and many other software companies shipping commercial apps, and a whole slew of shareware apps for everything inbetween. The only area Macs are weak in are games. That's the only piece of software lacking. However most Mac users can do without, or buy a console.

More choice in CPU? What good is that if they won't even let customers pick from a wider range of existing PPC chips? PCs have a wider range from 1 GHz to 3 GHz systems that you can still buy brand new. Macs on the other hand, once a speed bump comes along and systems are updated across the line, the older/slower models are gone, you'll have to buy them second hand or find a vendor who still has stock.
 
Well what do you think then apple should do to raise its market share? I think the only problem apple has is cost. I think going to the x86 chips would relieve them with some of the costs because they are in so much abundance and so cheap.
 
What do you think is the business model of Apple (who makes far more money than many PC makers...) ? Do they just sell an OS ? Why do some people buy a Mac ? When you have an answer for these questions then you can ask if they have to change technology.
 
it isnt the chip that makes apple cost that much.

and anyway. the G5s are much cheaper than any pc out there with same features (if theyre available)...
so.. the statement macs are expensive doesnt apply anymore.

and as for: 'Would apple have been a great competitor if it had bailed on PPC?'
there was a document or somethin from IBM statin why Apple didnt go Intel and why IBM whas the best solution.
specifically: http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/09/20030912124002.shtml


quote:
While Intel is aggressive in achieving its performance and speed goals, Apple believed that using Intel would deeply affect its current customer base. Using an Intel architecture might solve Apple's short-term megahertz dilemma, but customers would have to suffer through a slow transition from PowerPC over the long term. Every existing Mac program would potentially have to be recompiled to work on an Intel platform. These massive software changes were something that Apple wanted to avoid, and IBM had the solution."
 
Yes, but Intel holds the vast majority, being the biggest chip maker.

Do you want to know why OS X won't ever be compatible with X86? It is because Apple makes over a billion dollars per year from selling computers. They simply make their own OS so people will buy their computers. Apple makes less than $200 million a year of software, and that's all software: OS X, iLife, FCP, Logic, etc. If you could run those programs on Wintel boxes, Apple would have to scale waaaay back, probably becoming a predominantly software company like Microsoft.

I apologize for the above post, since you're now buying a Mac. However, you should keep the Mac-PC flame wars to a minimum since a) they're counterproductive and b) it's all been said before, many times.
 
I don't think Koko the Gorilla would have agreed with the switch to x86 processors.
KoKo liked the Mac II with its hypercard and supercard programs. Kokopaint was extremely popular. However, a 2,000 lb gorilla would be frustrated that Kokopaint was incompatible all of sudden and there would be much growling.
I think they didn't go x86 because they wanted to satisfy KoKo.
 
If you search this forum for X86, you'll find my 2'436 answers to the question that I've already given.

Nevertheless: The original question of the thread is interesting. And the answer is "no". At the time Apple chose to go with the PowerPC processor, it was the best choice around. Not only did it allow 68K code to run in emulation, it also was a concept for the future, while at the same time Intel went crazy creating ever hotter chips (486 DX/4 and schtuff like that, then the Pentium). Motorola and IBM, together with Apple, invented the PowerPC, which was cheaper, running cooler and faster at the same time. Perfect for notebooks, perfect for desktops.

The Motorola related problems are just that: Motorola related problems. Apple is solving this by putting some pressure on them. Choosing the G5 was a wise decision. Mot finally delivering the PowerPC 7457 is a good thing, too.
 
The thing about Motorola is, yes they have their "issues" which drove them to reduce their work force and focus a large percentage of their efforts on embedded processors for cell phones, networking equipment, and the like.

You can't run a desktop computer on a CPU designed for a cell phone :) That is why Apple finally decided to go with IBM for future desktop CPUs. IBM makes workstation and server class CPUs. Making a desktop class CPU out of the Power4 core wasn't rocket science, you just reduce it to a single core and chop the mega L2 cache.

Please stop suggesting Apple switch to x86 CPUs. Yes I realize AMD, Transmeta, and VIA (they bought Cyrix) make cheaper CPUs, but the G5 just helped Apple get the upper hand in performance, do you *really* think they want to take a huge step BACKWARDS by going with weaker CPUS? I'm talking about Transmeta and VIA, AMD chips now a days are just as expensive as Intel chips because of the price wars.

Hypothetically, if one could purchase (off the shelf) the G5 chasis with the cooling system and power supply, that alone will cost more than the CPU. The graphics cards customers have to choose from is very narrow. Why can't I buy a brand new G5 system with a cheaper GeForce 3 video card? Why can't I buy a new G5 system without Firewire and USB 2.0, or how about just a plain ol' CD-ROM drive?

My point is Mac systems seem more expensive because Apple decides what customers can/can't buy. In the PC market, you can buy/build-to-order a system with much more flexibility and cut corners anywhere you want. The same is not true with Macs. You can cut corners to a certain degree, but not as flexible as for example: Dell's system config website. I can gaurentee you, if Apple switches to x86 Macs will still be just as expensive as they are now. It's the business mentality, not the hardware design.
 
If Apple switched to x86, they'd have to completely re-write OS X to run on it, or drop their own OS altogether and become just another Windows-supporting Dell.
 
Pound for Pound, $ for $ you get much more value from an Apple than any PC. Just try to spec a PC to a similar spec and price (performance and software!) in an online store. It can't be done! It's like almost every other product out there, you really do get what you pay for.
 
Not true, because you can build your own PC, and with apple you cant.

Everyone knows that buying parts and building yourself comes alot cheaper than any brand PC.

Even if we take out this argument, Dell is gives you alot for what you pay. Dell has been ranked as 2nd best innovator in the world. Apple comes 3rd.

Micheal Dell is the 10 richest man in the world.

Steve is 47 or was it 74th?

You simply can't beat dell prices... I already made a comparison of an apple laptop and a dell laptop, for much cheaper price, dell gives you alot more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top