Linked by David Adams on Tue 27th Jul 2010 07:44 UTC
Intel An interesting article at Ars Technica takes a look at some compelling data (the longer-than-normal processor update cycles in Apple's personal computer lineup) and speculates that Apple's enthusiasm for its partnership with Intel might be cooling. Like Apple's soured relationship with once-BFF Google, this may be the result of Intel's increasing activities in the mobile computing space.
Permalink for comment 434636
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: PPC
by JLF65 on Tue 27th Jul 2010 23:26 UTC in reply to "RE: PPC"
JLF65
Member since:
2005-07-06

I have to second the value of the IBM side of the PPC family. I work on a daily basis with their 64-bit systems on AIX (Power4 on up), and I have been quite pleased with the performance. The architecture is also far cleaner than the x86/AMD64 hydra.


This. Anyone into hardware loves the Power/PPC architecture. No programmer I know "likes" the x86 architecture. The x86-64 is a LITTLE better, but not nearly as nice as any of the RISC processors. Look at an industry that does not need to run legacy x86 software: the PPC is at the heart of all three current generation game consoles.

That's why the comment in the article -

As interesting as AMD's Bulldozer architecture may turn out to be, we've all been burned by processor architectures that seemed awesome in concept but never delivered on their promises. PowerPC, anyone?


- is just nonsense. PPC delivered in spades. Apple switched to Intel for two reasons: Intel gave them a better deal for processors, and it made it easier for Macs to play Windows games... and that second reason is probably more important than the first.

Reply Parent Score: 2