But time has told the tale, and the Intel designs won, big time.

At that time (early-mid 80s), the 68000 was considered a _much_ better
processor.

By Mac heads.

It had far more registers, wider registers, a more regular
design (so easier for compiler writers), a flat memory model, and was in
many ways far more forward-thinking than the rather wacky and clunky
8086 architecture.

You have the key point exactly wrong: it was NOT forward looking.
Forward looking would have meant looking for best design in
a ruthlessly pipelined chip. Neither chip, of course,
actually did such looking. The Intel chip just, by accident,
was better. Motorola probably looked much too hard at the PDP-11.

True. BTW the reasons why Apple switched to Intel had nothing to do with
Intel having a better architecture as such. PPC was heading off, or
rather not turning to, the market Intel was in that Appel wanted to take
the Macs to.

The PPC is used in telecoms and another related high reliability
applications. Applications that don't need multi cores etc. So for
Freescale Apple are a small, if significant, customer but not one worth
developing new multi core parts for.

But time has told the tale, and the Intel designs won, big time.

it only won big time because of windows. it has nothing to do with
which chip is better.

Doug McDonald <mcdonald at (no spam) NoSpAmscs.uiuc.edu> writes:
the powerpc was a good chip. The 68000 was a major disaster
because of pipeline bottlenecks.

In 1984 (well, even earlier actually, as they had to design it before
selling it)?! Most microprocessors were not pipelined at all then.
[Were _any_? Mainframes were, but micros?]

At that time (early-mid 80s), the 68000 was considered a _much_ better
processor. It had far more registers, wider registers, a more regular
design (so easier for compiler writers), a flat memory model, and was in
many ways far more forward-thinking than the rather wacky and clunky
8086 architecture.

True. BTW the reasons why Apple switched to Intel had nothing to do with
Intel having a better architecture as such. PPC was heading off, or
rather not turning to, the market Intel was in that Appel wanted to take
the Macs to.

The PPC is used in telecoms and another related high reliability
applications. Applications that don't need multi cores etc.

So for
Freescale Apple are a small, if significant, customer but not one worth
developing new multi core parts for.

So for
Freescale Apple are a small, if significant, customer but not one worth
developing new multi core parts for.

The real reason is that the PPC consumed more power than the x86
architecture for equivalent work. A big deal in laptops which is what
pushed the change.

In article <zIednRuzg9CuQz_XnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>, Alan Browne
alan.browne at (no spam) FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

So for
Freescale Apple are a small, if significant, customer but not one worth
developing new multi core parts for.
The real reason is that the PPC consumed more power than the x86
architecture for equivalent work. A big deal in laptops which is what
pushed the change.

powerpc consumed *less* power than x86. when apple released the first
macbook pro, the power adapter went from 65w to 85w and the battery
itself was also bigger, with roughly the same run time.

macbooks and macbook pros run much hotter than a powerbook g4, although
part of that heat is from the gpu, not the intel or powerpc chip. as a
result, the minimum fan speed is about 2000 rpm in order to dissipate
the heat, whereas a powerbook g4 could stop the fan entirely and be
perfectly silent.

the early g5 chips consumed a lot of power, however, freescale/ibm
dropped the ball with reducing that. they started sampling a low power
g5 chip, but like the dual core g4 (also low power, ~15w if i recall,
quite low), it was too little too late.

In article <zIednRuzg9CuQz_XnZ2dnUVZ_hydnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>, Alan Browne
alan.browne at (no spam) FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

So for
Freescale Apple are a small, if significant, customer but not one worth
developing new multi core parts for.
The real reason is that the PPC consumed more power than the x86
architecture for equivalent work. A big deal in laptops which is what
pushed the change.

powerpc consumed *less* power than x86. when apple released the first
macbook pro, the power adapter went from 65w to 85w and the battery
itself was also bigger, with roughly the same run time.

macbooks and macbook pros run much hotter than a powerbook g4, although
part of that heat is from the gpu, not the intel or powerpc chip. as a
result, the minimum fan speed is about 2000 rpm in order to dissipate
the heat, whereas a powerbook g4 could stop the fan entirely and be
perfectly silent.

the early g5 chips consumed a lot of power, however, freescale/ibm
dropped the ball with reducing that. they started sampling a low power
g5 chip, but like the dual core g4 (also low power, ~15w if i recall,
quite low), it was too little too late.

The real reason is that the PPC consumed more power than the x86
architecture for equivalent work. A big deal in laptops which is what
pushed the change.

powerpc consumed *less* power than x86. when apple released the first
macbook pro, the power adapter went from 65w to 85w and the battery
itself was also bigger, with roughly the same run time.

macbooks and macbook pros run much hotter than a powerbook g4, although
part of that heat is from the gpu, not the intel or powerpc chip. as a
result, the minimum fan speed is about 2000 rpm in order to dissipate
the heat, whereas a powerbook g4 could stop the fan entirely and be
perfectly silent.

the early g5 chips consumed a lot of power, however, freescale/ibm
dropped the ball with reducing that. they started sampling a low power
g5 chip, but like the dual core g4 (also low power, ~15w if i recall,
quite low), it was too little too late.

Nice twist, but evades the facts.

Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was
their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC
technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In
particular, he cited the performance per watt (that is, the speed per
unit of electrical power) projections in the roadmap provided by Intel.
This is an especially important consideration in laptop design, which
affects the hours of use per battery charge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_transition

In article <OY6dnYv3AIdWPz7XnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d at (no spam) giganews.com>, Alan Browne
alan.browne at (no spam) FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

Steve Jobs stated that Apple's primary motivation for the transition was
their disappointment with the progress of IBM's development of PowerPC
technology, and their greater faith in Intel to meet Apple's needs. In
particular, he cited the performance per watt (that is, the speed per
unit of electrical power) projections in the roadmap provided by Intel.
This is an especially important consideration in laptop design, which
affects the hours of use per battery charge."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple%E2%80%93Intel_transition

well if it's on wikipedia it must be true.

steve said that intel's road map better aligned with what apple wanted
to do. they also get to run windows at native speeds making the
transition for switchers that much easier, something that worked out
very well.

he did mention mips per watt but that's a silly metric.

In article <II6dnVV8Cu9IAz7XnZ2dnUVZ_oVi4p2d at (no spam) giganews.com>, Alan Browne
alan.browne at (no spam) FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

The real reason is that the PPC consumed more power than the x86
architecture for equivalent work. A big deal in laptops which is what
pushed the change.
powerpc consumed *less* power than x86. when apple released the first
macbook pro, the power adapter went from 65w to 85w and the battery
itself was also bigger, with roughly the same run time.

macbooks and macbook pros run much hotter than a powerbook g4, although
part of that heat is from the gpu, not the intel or powerpc chip. as a
result, the minimum fan speed is about 2000 rpm in order to dissipate
the heat, whereas a powerbook g4 could stop the fan entirely and be
perfectly silent.

the early g5 chips consumed a lot of power, however, freescale/ibm
dropped the ball with reducing that. they started sampling a low power
g5 chip, but like the dual core g4 (also low power, ~15w if i recall,
quite low), it was too little too late.
Nice twist, but evades the facts.

no evasion. those *are* the facts.