🚀 go-pugleaf

SMS wrote:
> John Slade wrote:

> 
>> They needed to go to Intel architecture to keep their computers from 
>> becoming obsolete.
> 
> The big problem with their old architecture was that they could no 
> longer compete in the laptop market with the PowerPC because Intel was 
> so far ahead in terms of low power consumption notebook processors. It 
> was affecting battery life, thermals, and performance. They also got 
> tired of paying a premium price for every peripheral chip they used in 
> their machines.
> 

        That may have been part of the reason but the main 
reason was Motoroloa-IBM was not upgrading their processor 
speeds in the years right before the switch to Intel. You had 
dual-core Power PCs that could barely compete with the speed of 
single-core Pentium 4s. Apple would constantly lambaste Intel 
CPUs as being slower but those in the industry knew it was 
complete bull. I also think Motorola-IBM was not too interested 
in supporting Apple. As it turned out, years later IBM started 
producing some very good CPUs that are mainly used in Xbox 360s. 
IBM also makes the CPUs for Playstation 3s with Sony and Toshiba 
so it seems that IBM had no real interest in working with Apple 
in the future.


> The switch to x86 was one of the smartest moves they made in the history 
> of the company. Only Jobs could have pulled that off without destroying 
> the loyalty of the fanbois.

       Well some of those "fanbois" didn't like it too much. I 
was telling some of them that Apple would dump the PowerPC and I 
was told by many Apple folk that this would never happen. They 
told me that Apple would never put an Intel CPU inside a Mac. To 
them it was like a sacrilege to some of them. When Apple 
announced the switch it was funny to see them eat crow. That was 
the second time. Before that, many people said Apple would never 
put an IBM CPU in their systems as IBM was the main rival of 
Apple back in the day.

John