From: John Slade on
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