“There have been a few recent PowerPC announcements that have caused the Mac Faithful to wonder anew about The Switch and the ‘real’ reasons behind it. First, there was the 970FX announcement, which clearly showed that IBM is capable of putting out a 970 processor that compares quite well with the Pentium M in performance/watt. And then there’s the 970MP, which Apple has used to make a monster of a quad-processor 64-bit RISC workstation. For even the most diehard Jobs fans, both of these product releases, especially when set against Intel’s current performance/watt woes, raise serious questions about the public case that Teh Steve made for The Switch,” Hannibal writes for Ars Technica.
“To make matters even more interesting—or more vexing, if you were one of the true believers in PowerPC’s alleged power failure—P.A. Semi has just announced a dual-core 64-bit PowerPC processor SoC that, if the specs and numbers are to be believed, could take PowerPC to a whole new performance/watt level,” Hannibal writes. “Needless to say, jaws are on the floor, especially among those who were sold on Jobs’ description of The Switch as a purely performance/watt proposition… If you don’t think that Jobs was aware of the P.A. Semi project at the time of The Switch, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. There is absolutely no way that P.A. Semi has been developing a PowerPC design like this for the past two years and not courting Apple with it at the same time. So what gives?”
“Ever since The Switch I’ve been preaching that Jobs’s stated reasons for moving to Intel are bogus, and that Apple really cares more about gadgets going forward than it does about the Mac line (Part I and Part II). The Switch proves, I’ve argued, that the Mac line is no longer the foundation for Apple’s future growth, and it could very well go bye-bye,” Hannibal writes.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Hannibal doesn’t mention the reason we think Jobs made the switch: to take back the personal computer industry from Microsoft. We think Jobs’ goal is to provide Macs that can run both Mac OS X and have the capacity to run Windows or Windows applications. Windows-only applications and people who think they need Windows are a main reasons why Mac’s aren’t chosen – or even considered – by more computer buyers. Ask a Realtor, for just one example, why they don’t use Macs; their main apps are Windows-only.
As we’ve asked previously, if you can buy a computer from Apple that can run both Mac OS X and Windows applications at native speeds, why would anybody buy a crippled Windows-only Dell, HP, Gateway, Acer, Sony, etc.? Once people can see Mac OS X vs. Windows latest right in front of their faces, you know what happens. Bye-bye Windows.
Steve Jobs thinks big, not small. We believe that Jobs considers Microsoft Windows’ dominance illegitimate, undeserved, and a severe hinderance to the promise of personal computers. Windows dulls creativity with its inherent medicocrity. We certainly believe that “the world’s” choice of Windows has been a huge mistake and that people are starting to wake up to that fact. Jobs is not killing the Mac with the switch to Intel, he’s positioning the Mac to kill box assemblers like Dell and, eventually, Windows.
How Apple can win the OS war – October 19, 2005
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ ultimate goal: ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – June 16, 2005
Intel’s built-in virtualization tech could be one way to run Windows on Intel-based Apple Macs
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple ‘Macintel’ computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Windows users who try Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger might not want to go back – June 07, 2005
Microsoft: The safest way to run Windows is on your Mac – October 08, 2004