6 ms·

I remember each of the architecture transitions (M68k->PPC, PPC->x86, x86->ARM), and perhaps the most vivid recollection I have of each one is that it made perf

I remember each of the architecture transitions (M68k->PPC, PPC->x86, x86->ARM), and perhaps the most vivid recollection I have of each one is that it made perfect sense at the time. In other words, it wasn't a surprise move by Apple, and I remember widespread speculation for years beforehand in the broader community (Apple users and otherwise). PPC offered tremendous promise in the early 1990s at the same time Motorola's evolution of M68k was lackluster at best - so it made perfect sense that Apple would need to migrate away from M68k, and PPC was the optimal choice so as not to compete directly with hardware used by the PC market. And when Intel/AMD were innovating tremendously in the early 2000s while IBM was lagging with bringing out aggressive updates to their PPC line, the switch to Intel seemed inevitable. Even the idea that Apple should heavily develop their ARM mobile chips for future Apple products was discussed heavily in my circles since about 2016 (around the same time Intel started to stagnate their offerings). The earliest I remember was this blog from 2011: https://www.mattrichman.net/apple-and-arm-sitting-in-a-tree/ https://www.mattrichman.net/apple-and-arm-sitting-in-a-tree/.

RetroTechie 3y ago
> PPC offered tremendous promise in the early 1990s at the same time Motorola's evolution of M68k was lackluster at best Apple entered into a trio with IBM & Motorola to develop the PowerPC in early 90's. But at that time, there already was MIPS around. Anyone know why this PowerPC project was started despite that? Especially if -per the article- the main goal was to move from CISC to RISC? Even if MIPS cpus around at the time had performance/W issues (I've no idea yes or no), then improving technology for existing ISA would be easier than inventing entire new architecture, no? (+ all the software tools) And there was also SPARC then. So why invent new wheel, vs. improve MIPS (or SPARC) & use that? Not-invented-here syndrome? Licensing issues?
- datadeft 3y ago
  Apple at the time of the x86 switch was roughly 3% of the PPC chip market.
  - Sardtok 3y ago
    This is the 68K->PPC switch about a decade earlier.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    Huh. What was yet other 97?
    - gumby 3y ago
      IBM and a lot of systems that had been 68K. Though the architectures were different a lot of 68K assumptions were maintained in the PPC so porting was easier.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      In part, all three 7th generation game consoles (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii).
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - datadeft 3y ago
      Printers, game consoles, supercomputers.
      - Someone 3y ago
        And cars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_5000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_5000, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221903-400-programmed-to-win/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221903-400-programm..., https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/42065/reasons-for-popularity-of-powerpc-for-embedded-designs https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/42065/reason...)
- sillywalk 3y ago
  They AIM alliance also wanted to end the Wintel Duopoly. Adopting SPARC would help out Sun Microsystems, which I believe was the leader in workstations at the time. MIPS was to be used as one of the 'standard' reference platforms for the Advanced Computing Environment[0] or Advanced RISC Computing (?) (the other being X86), that would run Windows NT. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Computing_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Computing_Environment
- microtherion 3y ago
  PowerPC was not really an entirely new architecture, it was a downsized implementation of the POWER architecture which IBM had already been shipping in workstations for a few years.
HappyDaoDude 3y ago
There was that moment when a friend had a Dual G5 PowerMac only to have it trampled in performance by the new Core Duo Mac Mini. That was when we knew Apple had made the right move. I called the G5 tower (Steve's shame), you could just tell that every time those fans kicked into top gear that there was a sense of shame that that thing even shipped. The M1 felt like that all over again. I didn't really get that feeling during the 68K to PPC era but that also wasn't handled as gracefully.
- leventonportera 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    And the M1 MacBook was quieter, lighter and I could actually sit it on my lap without worrying whether it would prevent me from having little Scarface74’s. Apple didn’t come out with high end ARM Mac laptops until later. Yes from a laptop - a portable computer - I loved being able to plug it in overnight and to use it all day at a customer’s site without worrying about battery life.
    - jwells89 3y ago
      > And the M1 MacBook was quieter, lighter and I could actually sit it on my lap Yeah this is key. In a laptop that’s meant to be used as a laptop, designing for maximum power at all costs isn’t the winning move. M1 was nice in that it’s plenty powerful while also not making the laptop’s fans scream and being able to survive away from an outlet for several hours despite doing “real work”. In short, balance, which is still surprisingly hard to come by in x86 laptops. If you want a 10lb monster desktop replacement, gaming laptop that does the 2016 Apple thing and crams too many watts into too thin of a chassis, or a really weak ultraportable with mediocre battery life you’ve got plenty of options. If you want reasonable performance with great battery life and silence however you’re restricted to a tiny handful of options.
      - 3y ago
scarface_74 3y ago
Apple was much more open about future plans in the early 90s. Apple talked about the PPC transition long before hardware was available and said they were switching to PCI for the second generation PPC Mac’s before the first generation ones ever shipped or slightly thereafter. But it seems clear that Apple is going to have the same problem with ARM that it had with PPC. It’s already falling behind on the high end. The ARM MacPro is laughably incapable compared to high end x86 processors and they still have no GPU story to compete with Nvidia on the high end. I’m sure Apple could design something capable of competing with high end Intel CPUs. They just don’t have the stomach for it because the market for really high end Mac’s are so small. Whether it matters is the question.
- datadeft 3y ago
  Any time this comes up I try to entertain the idea of using a much faster computer without MacOS and then realize that the OS is ~70% of the complete user experience for me. I am not sure what percentage of users are like that. I have ptsd just thinking about the whole multivendor fuckery what it means to have hardware devices with drivers that barely work most of the time. After using a computer on a daily basis for three decades I have no idea why people wasting time with bad software other than being a work requirement. I still use Windows for work and the amount of time is wasted on that platform is insane. The majority of staff at current co agrees that Windows is a dead end. The most notable ‘innovation’ ms has in win11 is the removal of adjustable scrolling direction. I seriously thought it was a joke that was executed somebody at ms trolling people just to even consider using win11. Apparently this is ok. Anyways, back to the subject if Apple start to ship Raspberry Pis from tomorrow then I still don’t care and buy Apple until they ruin MacOS, in which case I switch to a job that does not require a computer.
  - eru 3y ago
    Linux works pretty well these days, too.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    As a happy Mac convert, the drivers are not perfect (video is especially buggy and Sonoma only made it worse). I personally experienced driver issues very rarely mostly on machines I personally built (the story for OEM-qualified configurations is even better) and Windows does plenty better than the Mac UI, in my opinion.
ngcc_hk 3y ago
The Intel is a surprise. Others are natural evolution as the original cpu is a seemingly deadend, even though powerPC did move on and still some embedded 68k. But the salesmanship of steve can bring you that long n that platform is a miracle. Having the struggle later with wintel is hard as intel is really improved a lot. Still a surprise as even steve said we have a secret project keeping next sorry osx I meant on intel as an option. Love his presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcHQXMAd0c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcHQXMAd0c0 Btw he said the osx transition will last us next 20 years. Just dong it and by 2025 intel no more! Wonder what is the next transition.
ksec 3y ago
Oh it started way before 2016, I remember it was somewhat discussed within some circles in 2009 / 2010 already. At least in the hardware industry enthusiast forum. Remember Apple brought P.A. Semi in 2008. Partnered with Samsung Foundry. And Mac Tablet would come in 2009 before we know it as iPad in 2010 . There were talks / rumours and push of Intel becoming a foundry in 2011, and later 2013 they announced Intel Custom Foundry. [1] There were lots and lots of signals in the background that Apple is serious about their chip strategy all the way back in 2009. It wasn't so much about switching to ARM as an ISA, which is somehow what most people focused on. But switching to self designed and fabbed SoC for cost efficiency. And that was before the internet knew anything about TSMC or Semiconductor Foundry. [1] I still remember I gave another year to Intel to see if they improve their strategy but BK was simply a complete failure. Decided to bet against Intel and bought AMD at below $3 a share.
- sillywalk 3y ago
  Ironically(?) PA Semi was working on a POWER ISA processor[0], after Apple made the switch to from PowerPC to Intel. Though it look like those working @ PA Semi helped design both the Alpha and StrongARM processors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient
  - tambourine_man 3y ago
    Yes, we were all speculating PA Semi’s PWRficient PPC chips were the future of laptop chips on Macs. I remember being very exited about that on MacRumors and ArsTechnica forums. Apple always wanted to make their own chips (see Alan Kay’s famous quote), they just lacked the volume.
Clamchop 3y ago
To my memory, it was known that Apple had been maintaining an x86 build of OS X for some time, so it wasn't completely out of left field. But, it still felt surprising, if only for their intense marketing painting Intel processors as slow and their PowerMacs as "supercomputers," which still hits for its brazen absurdity. Then to turn the narrative on its head in one keynote! That's marketing for you.
- pasc1878 3y ago
  Early versions of OSX (well Rhapsody) were release on x86 and the underlying OS ran on several other chips so really well known.

RetroTechie 3y ago

> PPC offered tremendous promise in the early 1990s at the same time Motorola's evolution of M68k was lackluster at best Apple entered into a trio with IBM & Motorola to develop the PowerPC in early 90's. But at that time, there already was MIPS around. Anyone know why this PowerPC project was started despite that? Especially if -per the article- the main goal was to move from CISC to RISC? Even if MIPS cpus around at the time had performance/W issues (I've no idea yes or no), then improving technology for existing ISA would be easier than inventing entire new architecture, no? (+ all the software tools) And there was also SPARC then. So why invent new wheel, vs. improve MIPS (or SPARC) & use that? Not-invented-here syndrome? Licensing issues?

datadeft 3y ago
Apple at the time of the x86 switch was roughly 3% of the PPC chip market.
- Sardtok 3y ago
  This is the 68K->PPC switch about a decade earlier.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Huh. What was yet other 97?
  - gumby 3y ago
    IBM and a lot of systems that had been 68K. Though the architectures were different a lot of 68K assumptions were maintained in the PPC so porting was easier.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    In part, all three 7th generation game consoles (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii).
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - datadeft 3y ago
    Printers, game consoles, supercomputers.
    - Someone 3y ago
      And cars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_5000 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerPC_5000, https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221903-400-programmed-to-win/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221903-400-programm..., https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/42065/reasons-for-popularity-of-powerpc-for-embedded-designs https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/42065/reason...)
sillywalk 3y ago
They AIM alliance also wanted to end the Wintel Duopoly. Adopting SPARC would help out Sun Microsystems, which I believe was the leader in workstations at the time. MIPS was to be used as one of the 'standard' reference platforms for the Advanced Computing Environment[0] or Advanced RISC Computing (?) (the other being X86), that would run Windows NT. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Computing_Environment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Computing_Environment
microtherion 3y ago
PowerPC was not really an entirely new architecture, it was a downsized implementation of the POWER architecture which IBM had already been shipping in workstations for a few years.

HappyDaoDude 3y ago

There was that moment when a friend had a Dual G5 PowerMac only to have it trampled in performance by the new Core Duo Mac Mini. That was when we knew Apple had made the right move. I called the G5 tower (Steve's shame), you could just tell that every time those fans kicked into top gear that there was a sense of shame that that thing even shipped. The M1 felt like that all over again. I didn't really get that feeling during the 68K to PPC era but that also wasn't handled as gracefully.

leventonportera 3y ago
[flagged]
- scarface_74 3y ago
  And the M1 MacBook was quieter, lighter and I could actually sit it on my lap without worrying whether it would prevent me from having little Scarface74’s. Apple didn’t come out with high end ARM Mac laptops until later. Yes from a laptop - a portable computer - I loved being able to plug it in overnight and to use it all day at a customer’s site without worrying about battery life.
  - jwells89 3y ago
    > And the M1 MacBook was quieter, lighter and I could actually sit it on my lap Yeah this is key. In a laptop that’s meant to be used as a laptop, designing for maximum power at all costs isn’t the winning move. M1 was nice in that it’s plenty powerful while also not making the laptop’s fans scream and being able to survive away from an outlet for several hours despite doing “real work”. In short, balance, which is still surprisingly hard to come by in x86 laptops. If you want a 10lb monster desktop replacement, gaming laptop that does the 2016 Apple thing and crams too many watts into too thin of a chassis, or a really weak ultraportable with mediocre battery life you’ve got plenty of options. If you want reasonable performance with great battery life and silence however you’re restricted to a tiny handful of options.
    - 3y ago

scarface_74 3y ago

Apple was much more open about future plans in the early 90s. Apple talked about the PPC transition long before hardware was available and said they were switching to PCI for the second generation PPC Mac’s before the first generation ones ever shipped or slightly thereafter. But it seems clear that Apple is going to have the same problem with ARM that it had with PPC. It’s already falling behind on the high end. The ARM MacPro is laughably incapable compared to high end x86 processors and they still have no GPU story to compete with Nvidia on the high end. I’m sure Apple could design something capable of competing with high end Intel CPUs. They just don’t have the stomach for it because the market for really high end Mac’s are so small. Whether it matters is the question.

datadeft 3y ago
Any time this comes up I try to entertain the idea of using a much faster computer without MacOS and then realize that the OS is ~70% of the complete user experience for me. I am not sure what percentage of users are like that. I have ptsd just thinking about the whole multivendor fuckery what it means to have hardware devices with drivers that barely work most of the time. After using a computer on a daily basis for three decades I have no idea why people wasting time with bad software other than being a work requirement. I still use Windows for work and the amount of time is wasted on that platform is insane. The majority of staff at current co agrees that Windows is a dead end. The most notable ‘innovation’ ms has in win11 is the removal of adjustable scrolling direction. I seriously thought it was a joke that was executed somebody at ms trolling people just to even consider using win11. Apparently this is ok. Anyways, back to the subject if Apple start to ship Raspberry Pis from tomorrow then I still don’t care and buy Apple until they ruin MacOS, in which case I switch to a job that does not require a computer.
- eru 3y ago
  Linux works pretty well these days, too.
- Clamchop 3y ago
  As a happy Mac convert, the drivers are not perfect (video is especially buggy and Sonoma only made it worse). I personally experienced driver issues very rarely mostly on machines I personally built (the story for OEM-qualified configurations is even better) and Windows does plenty better than the Mac UI, in my opinion.

ngcc_hk 3y ago

The Intel is a surprise. Others are natural evolution as the original cpu is a seemingly deadend, even though powerPC did move on and still some embedded 68k. But the salesmanship of steve can bring you that long n that platform is a miracle. Having the struggle later with wintel is hard as intel is really improved a lot. Still a surprise as even steve said we have a secret project keeping next sorry osx I meant on intel as an option. Love his presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcHQXMAd0c0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcHQXMAd0c0 Btw he said the osx transition will last us next 20 years. Just dong it and by 2025 intel no more! Wonder what is the next transition.

ksec 3y ago

Oh it started way before 2016, I remember it was somewhat discussed within some circles in 2009 / 2010 already. At least in the hardware industry enthusiast forum. Remember Apple brought P.A. Semi in 2008. Partnered with Samsung Foundry. And Mac Tablet would come in 2009 before we know it as iPad in 2010 . There were talks / rumours and push of Intel becoming a foundry in 2011, and later 2013 they announced Intel Custom Foundry. [1] There were lots and lots of signals in the background that Apple is serious about their chip strategy all the way back in 2009. It wasn't so much about switching to ARM as an ISA, which is somehow what most people focused on. But switching to self designed and fabbed SoC for cost efficiency. And that was before the internet knew anything about TSMC or Semiconductor Foundry. [1] I still remember I gave another year to Intel to see if they improve their strategy but BK was simply a complete failure. Decided to bet against Intel and bought AMD at below $3 a share.

sillywalk 3y ago
Ironically(?) PA Semi was working on a POWER ISA processor[0], after Apple made the switch to from PowerPC to Intel. Though it look like those working @ PA Semi helped design both the Alpha and StrongARM processors. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PWRficient
- tambourine_man 3y ago
  Yes, we were all speculating PA Semi’s PWRficient PPC chips were the future of laptop chips on Macs. I remember being very exited about that on MacRumors and ArsTechnica forums. Apple always wanted to make their own chips (see Alan Kay’s famous quote), they just lacked the volume.

Clamchop 3y ago

To my memory, it was known that Apple had been maintaining an x86 build of OS X for some time, so it wasn't completely out of left field. But, it still felt surprising, if only for their intense marketing painting Intel processors as slow and their PowerMacs as "supercomputers," which still hits for its brazen absurdity. Then to turn the narrative on its head in one keynote! That's marketing for you.

pasc1878 3y ago
Early versions of OSX (well Rhapsody) were release on x86 and the underlying OS ran on several other chips so really well known.