Home > Apple > Apple’s Move to PowerPC Apple’s Move to PowerPC Submitted by Saad 2005-08-02 Apple 13 Comments Apple’s transition to the PowerPC processor, which began publicly in 1994, began in an IBM lab in the mid seventies. Read about Apple’s move to RISC at Low End Mac. About The Author 13 Comments 2005-08-02 5:33 pm timosa As I understand you don’t click this mouse but touch. If this is correct it should be ideal for people with RSI problems. 2005-08-02 9:36 pm pravda From Apple’s website, it seems that you click and touch. The clicking uses the “whole mouse” like the current mouse. Based on where your finger pressure is the most, it activates that button. Sometimes you just have to wonder why Apple ships a crappy keyboard for the last 10 years and a crappy mouse for the past 20 years and then comes up with this odd mutation of a mouse. A white Logitech MX series mouse would rock compared to the “mighty mouse”. And would have cost Apple far less money. 2005-08-02 5:48 pm Anonymous You might get more interest in your post if you post in the correct thread. 2005-08-02 6:40 pm timosa 🙁 2005-08-02 8:00 pm Anonymous Did anyone else see this headline and think, “I thought they just announced they were moving to x86! What the hell are they smoking in Cuppertino? 2005-08-03 1:39 am imothepixie I came to Mac at about OS 7.5 on a spangly new 8500 with a massive 92Mb of Ram (yes i think that was huge in 96!) I think my first step into tweaking Mac stuff was finding a shareware/freeware that removed the extra 68k stuff to get the extra k …..arh never mind the space of a 2Gb Hd and 650 Mb optical drive… maybe k counting to fight fat may be back in vogue? with all our apps putting on weight in the next couple of years! 2005-08-03 1:51 am pravda with the new fatter-than-ever-before “Universal” binaries, many apps will be puffier vs. slimmer. of course, puffier apps helps the hardware upgrade treadmill work, so apple and others are happy. until human beings focus on value vs. revenue and look at total cost vs. artificial short-term cost numbers there will be no signficant improvement in computers when it comes to resource usage or efficiency. 2005-08-03 3:21 am Anonymous Eh, sure the file sizes for the executable part of the application will be doubled or so, but that’s it. It won’t really make things slower, cuz only the needed part will be loaded in memory, and used by the CPU. The only thing it will do, is take up more hard drive space, but not much more since multimedia assets (video, graphics, audio) take up the majority of space, not the executable part of a program. 2005-08-03 2:35 pm Anonymous that they had to move to powerpc? 2005-08-03 6:41 pm pravda Performance had topped out. Motorola did not have enough customers to keep developing better 68K chips. Better architectures came along and stomped Moto. The fact that Apple went with PowerPC instead of Intel was one of the big decisions that doomed Apple to low market share. Now that Apple has finally realized the error of their ways and will be on Intel shortly, it will be interesting to see what market share they can recapture. 2005-08-03 2:49 pm Anonymous These stories are a mix of surprizingly detailed facts and surprizingly innacurate information. The “Carl Sagan” code (and BHA name which followed) name was for a version of the Apple Newton, not a PowerPC Macintosh. There are other completely wrong parts too – caveat emptor. 2005-08-03 10:05 pm MYOB Eh. No. The “Sagan” codename was for the Macintosh 7100. 2005-08-03 9:42 pm Anonymous Too bad they decided to take a step back and downgrade their future releases to the proprietary 16bit Intel Pentio processor, who has kept binary compat in order to support imbeciles like Microseft and their shitty proprietary software.