“The speed of the [new Intel-based Macs] begs the question as to the apparent BS that the Mac community was fed for years regarding the natural superiority of the PowerPC chip. As far as I’m concerned Apple’s credibility is now suspect on all levels. More interesting were the rather insulting ads Apple showed regarding these chips indicating that any use before Apple was essentially a crummy loser. This, of course referred to Windows I guess. Apparently Apple is unaware of the fact that Linux runs at blazing speed on these chips too,” John Dvorak writes for PC Magazine.
Full article along with photo essay of Macworld Expo 2006 here.
MacDailyNews Take: While we agree wholeheartedly with Dvorak’s characterization of Apple’s Intel ad (insulting the very customers that you’re trying to get to switch to your product is a typical Apple advertising/marketing misadventure), he couldn’t be more wrong about PowerPC chips. The Intel-based iMac is faster than the PowerPC-based iMac G5 because the chip is dual core vs. single core. Same goes for MacBook Pro vs. PowerBook G4. Of course, Intel-based Macs are faster, they have twice the processors inside. The world’s fastest Mac is PowerPC-based: Apple’s Power Mac G5 Quad with, you guessed it, four processors.
The Intel Core Duo processors that Apple is using are new. They simply weren’t available when Apple claimed the PowerPC was a faster chip, so there is no way you can call BS on Apple if you want people to take you seriously.
Of note, too, are that the new Intel Core Duo processors are also fabbed at 65nm vs. the Power PC G5’s 90nm process. Apple’s inexcusable inability to sell the vastly superior Mac (compared to Microsoft Windows, in particular) in greater numbers didn’t exactly encourage IBM to spend the money in PowerPC development that they would have if Apple made it worth their while. The PowerPC is, in many ways, an excellent architecture that could’ve been and could still be much more than it is today. In addition, there are many other factors to consider: RAM speed, caching, system bus, and more that contribute to speed differences. PowerPC was the best option and faster at some tasks than anything from Intel back when Apple was selling PowerPC. “Selling” being the operative word. Apple was doing its job, not lying, not BS’ing; they were selling the real benefits of PowerPC over Intel processors at the time and not highlighting deficiencies. Now Apple will sell Intel’s benefits and attributes as they phase out PowerPC. And, if Intel can’t keep up, Apple could always sell AMD or PowerPC. Such is the beauty of the new Universal Binary paradigm, right? Think about it: Apple now has the ability — if they wish to exercise it — to pick the best processors for any particular Mac from among Intel, IBM, Freescale, and AMD. Windows box assemblers like Dell simply cannot match Apple Macs in the area of processor choice or anything else, for that matter.
Again, times change, you can’t accuse Apple of BS’ing back when they were comparing G4s to Pentiums on the basis that they’ve now chosen to use a brand new Intel chip that didn’t even exist a month ago.
Advertisements:
• MacBook Pro. The first Mac notebook built upon Intel Core Duo with iLife ’06, Front Row and built-in iSight. Starting at $1999. Free shipping.
• iMac. Twice as amazing — Intel Core Duo, iLife ’06, Front Row media experience, Apple Remote, built-in iSight. Starting at $1299. Free shipping.
• iMac and MacBook Pro owners: Apple USB Modem. Easily connect to the Internet using dial-up service. $49.00.
• iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.
• iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
• Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
Dvorak is the Rush Limbaugh of the computing world. Make a few untruthful statements every month, just to rile people up, doesn’t really care if they’re truthful or not. Money-grubbing whore.
Lo, even Intel has gone this route.
For many years they focused on being the binary compatible solution as their chips evolved; one day they announced Itanium/IA64 as their top end performance solution, a position is still holds in the Intel product line.
Obviously conditions changed to some extent.
Dvorak being a computer historian should very well understand the significance of the Osborne effect.
Put yourself in Jobs’ shoes in 2000; you know you want to get out from under the hassles of Motorola/Freescale, but how do you go about it-
a) the way that actually took place (5 year secret porting project, announce to developers and public six months before it ships)
-or-
b) In the year 2000, announce with great public fanfare that you’re going to phase out PowerPC and switch to Intel sometime in the next five years, and it’s gonna be great. OS X isn’t even done yet, but hey everyone, we’re going to switch chips out too.
I don’t think it was Mac sales volume that caused IBM to be unenthusiastic about developing the PowerPC processor.
Did you notice how many of the world’s super computers were based on the Mac back when Virginia had #3? IBM sure did.
IBM Boardroom:
Chief Exec: “WTF? Super computers are what *we* do.”
Minions: “Err.” “Umm.”
Chief Exec: “Stop work on the G5. Concentrate on Power4. I hear PlayStation and Xbox want chips for their games boxes. Can they make super computers out of those?”
Minions: “Err.” “Umm.” “Don’t think so.”
Chief Exec: “OK. Make those chips too. Just stonewall the G5. Dismissed.”
Its the experience that matters. its the combination of OS, hardware, industrial design, etc that makes a mac different.
Apple spent years fighting the megaherz myth, and the fact that they switched processors does not discredit that.
Now, if intel makes a newer, better processor, and apple’s OS is able to make use of it better than a windows computer, I think this is the possibility that might freak people out. this is why Microsoft is trying to hamper the OS by discontinuing some of its Mac software so that they can’t compete on equal footing.
Anyway, my powerbook still has plenty of life in it so I’m waiting for the next revision of the macbook pro. Maybe its Kool-Aid, but its damn good.
Dvorak shills for anyone who is on the top the heap – the financial heap that is. He will use any anachronistic argument, any twisted comparison to promote himself and his financial backers. He is the typical talking head/”expert” of the main stream media – except he’s in the computer world.
MDN word: “cause” – ’cause he’s a wanker!
The Power PC chip IS NOT inferior to the x86 chip. Apple’s decision was forced by the decisions made by FreeScale and IBM- not any natural superiority of CISC type chips.
The truth of the matter is that Apple’s business was TOO SMALL for IBM or FreeScale to develop CPU design at a pace that would satisfy Apple’s market needs. If Apple would have been willing to pay more per chip they could have gotten more from their suppliers.
The reason IBM decided to concentrate their recent hip development on Cell & X-Box 360 chips is really simple–VOLUME. Microsoft will sell more X-Box 360s in 2006 that Apple sold computers of all kinds worldwide last year. Not 10-12 different designs– 1 design.
Simple economics.
Dvorak is either dishonest or a moron.
We report, you decide.
Dvorak is just a crabby old man now. Not worth clicking the link.
question, guys:
when people say that the core duo needs two cores to match a single g5, i don’t think they’re using their brains, unless they can prove (by using activity monitor) that the apps they test against the g5 are using roughly 200% CPU cycles per the g5’s 100%. remember, being dual-core is essentially the same as being dual CPU, so if the app doesn’t take advantage of dual CPU, it’s going to be like running a single-core intel chip. however, if the apps ARE optimized for dual cpu, then wouldn’t it be best to compare the new imac with a dual 1.8 powermac g5? hell, i dunno. i just woke up. sounds right to me, though. =)
“insulting the very customers that you’re trying to get to switch to your product is a typical Apple advertising/marketing misadventure”
perfect.
This guy is 100 per cent right. And this happens everytime Apple makes changes–When Apple switched to the G3 it wasnt just that the G3 chip was better than the Motorola chips , but all of a sudden it was that the Motorola chips were terrible. Same thing here–Apple acts as if the IBM G5 chip was always designed to taint Apple. Now poor Apple is finally using a good chip. AND WHO PAYS???? Those customers who were loyal to Apple and who believed Apple will no longer have computers that run Apple software at optimum speeds. DOES APPLECARE????? NO. Products will cease to be designed for optimal use with G4 and G5 computers. DOES APPLECARE???
N0.
I remember a column back in the days of the early or pre NeXt era (Infoworld, IIRC), when Johnny boy Dvorak pulled a Michael Dell on Steve Jobs. Dvorak, with dripping contempt, advised Steve that he had his day in the sun, but it was time to take his money and run. He was finished.
When you gratuitously attack somebody and are proven a fool, you can go two ways. You can apologize if you have any character or you can ramp up the contempt into hatred if you don’t. Just read Johnny boy’s tone to see what he is made of.
“a) the way that actually took place (5 year secret porting project, announce to developers and public six months before it ships)”
This “secret port” questions has me somewhat confused. Didn’t OSX come from NeXT when it was bought by Apple. And didn’t the NeXT operating system run on x86 chips? So could it be in fact OSX was ported to the Mac and just continued development on x86 chips.
???
Very disappointing MDN. Even a single core chip would be faster than a PowerPC chip. STEVE JOBS SAID THIS IN HIS KEYNOTE. Were you not listening.
You are slowly losing me as a reader with some of your comments. Based not on fact, but of a hatred so deep for anything MS or PC-based its almost laughable.
It’s time to act a bit respectable.
He’s so correct. When I ate the ‘New and Improvered, Better Tasting’ hot dogs the other day, that must have meant that the older hot dogs I was eating, was really, really crappy & not fit for human consumption? I off to be sick
Dear PC Magazine
As far as the educated reader is concerned, Dvorak’s credibility is increasingly suspect on all levels. I hope that after examine his present and past writings, you’ll see it necessary to cancel his column and the repeal the undeserved credibility it gives his dribble.
Irrelevant what BS Apple says about its products, brainwashed Macfags buy anything anyways.
Ed said:
“Very disappointing MDN. Even a single core chip would be faster than a PowerPC chip. STEVE JOBS SAID THIS IN HIS KEYNOTE. Were you not listening.
You are slowly losing me as a reader with some of your comments. Based not on fact, but of a hatred so deep for anything MS or PC-based its almost laughable.
It’s time to act a bit respectable.”
I suggest you follow the Dave Challender link.
The intel performance, in current models, is on average, far less than 2x G5.
matt,
if you read the comments in the macworld article, the author says he watched activity monitor and that the core duo was using both cores. Here is his (Jason Snell) comment:
The iApps are actually not bad at using both cores. We spend a lot of time staring at Activity Monitor… those little colored squares are burned on my brain.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
I think it’s fair to say that in most of our tests, both cores were basically running at 100%, so we’re sufficiently testing out these systems.
Also technically Activity Monitor reflects percentages in terms of 100% for a processor, so a heavy multiprocessing task can end up showing 180% processor!
So I wish I could tell you that these scores are what they are because they don’t use the second core, but it doesn’t appear to be true.
Jason Snell, Editorial Director, Macworld
Dvorak, Dvorak, Dvorak….
Explain then how I looked up the top supercomputers in the world and there were G5’s ahead of AMD and Intel based systems that had both faster chips and more of them.
Go ahead, I’m waiting…
– Mark
“Didn’t OSX come from NeXT when it <strike>was</strike> bought <strike>by</strike> Apple. And didn’t the NeXT operating system run on x86 chips? So could it be in fact OSX was ported to the Mac and just continued development on x86 chips.”
Yes. Yes. Yes.
re: the article: I’m getting a new g5 dual in a few days. I don’t feel lied to. I can’t wait, in fact.
Send your MacDailyNews Take to Dvorak. It makes sense to me. I would love to see his response to it.
I’ve never been much of a fan of Apples ‘bake offs’ because the hardware is only part of the performance equation. The PowerPC has adavantages over Intel and vica versa. However getting developers to put the same energy into optimising their software as they do for Windows is the key.
Apple need to drop the whole performance bragging thing now. Fankly it’s a bore. Back pedalling on how much Intel chips blow away PowerPCs just isn’t a good look, and the latest Intel ad, while amusing, is worthless.
Dvorak is 5 times more stupid than he was 3 years ago.
I guess he will also have to confess his glaring idiocy.
To DasRealist–
“…..in the 11 years I’ve been in this community, and with all the ridicule and scorn we heap on MS, running Windows and Windows apps on a Mac is STILL being held up as some kind of holy grail.”
No, not a Holy grail–but a necessary EVIL in some software cases.
As long as there are apps that only run on a PC (and the number is getting smaller) you will have people wanting both OS on one computer on one desk. And of course a high tech designed Mac on your desk beats an ugly ass Dell box any day.
Apple didn’t switch to Intel because X86 suddenly burst ahead of PowerPC. Apple switched to Intel because IBM refused to put resources into creating a G5 and beyond chip capable of going into laptops.
Look at what Apple sells: all models except for the G5 towers and Xserves use basically a laptop chip due to form factor. Apple needs fast laptop chips, not fast white-hot desktop chips. IBM wasn’t going to supply those, and Intel can. This also leaves Apple open to AMD in the future should relations with Intel go south.