CPUs - Mac, PC, before the all Intels

[Atnevon]

Ok. So i'm bored at night and wondered a question tht has really pondered my mind for a while, but never got a really good solid answer to.

Before Mac began Intel cpus in their compys, I wondered what the big differences were in the MAC and PC chips. I'm a bit familier with both systems, being a Graphic Designer, but many of my professors are old school and can't give me good technical answers.

Here is what I know, and maybe you all can correct me if I am wrong.

MACS: Good at processing tasks in order of priority, and at clumped data. They were used by people in Design fields for this reasons. However, they were not very good multi-taskers. Eg, Photoshop and only Photoshop was your focus. No Firefox at the same time or really bad slowdowns.

PCs: CPUs can mulit-task better. Data was smaller and linier, not processed in bulk. The multi-task ability made them more optimal for home/buisness use.

Wel, I guess this is general stuff. But if MACs were design machines, why was the game market PC based, not MAC? THat is another question, why was pre-OSX gaming such a dead market? Was it OS or hardware based?

This could be a real topic builder, so I guess just to get info, does anyone know of a few good sources I can read up on for the technical, yet down to earth material on the markets. There seem to be alot of thoughts and not good info. Just word of mouth.

Thank you everyone, hope you all learn something as well.
-Andrew

[Rob!]

Pre-Intel Macs were running in PowerPC processors, which were fast, but suffered from heat issues. That's why Powerbooks and iBooks never progressed past G4s, and I've read that Mac users who upgraded from G5 iMacs to Intel complained that their rooms were now cold. Apple switched to Intel because IBM could not keep up with what Apple wanted.

To be honest I'm not really sure why Macs became the de facto standard for graphic design, but they kinda did. A lot of creativity software was only available for Mac for quite some time, but over the past few years the line has been blurred.

[Atnevon]

Hmm. So was IBM the maker of the CPUs for Apple? You mention heat issues. I can see that.

Now it seems that more apps are Mac/PC likeable. Hell, .ttf are even working together? Was this compatibity a result of the hardware change, or OS?

I'm just confuded now that I have begun to understand the technology a bit more.

[btarunr]

PC's use the processors based on the x86. Macs used the PowerPC processors. Just as x86 processors then were made by several companies like Intel, AMD, Centaur, Cyrix, Transmeta, etc., PPC processors were made by IBM and the likes of Motorola, eventually Freescale semiconductor. IDT was one company that put its hands in both x86 and PPC. Read more about PPC archtecture here (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu/ppc-1.ars/1).

Other RISC architectures Apple used apart from the x86 and PPC is ARM (Acorn RISC Machine) in the iPhone and the iPod touch. My personal opinion: PowerPC is a superior RISC architecture to the x86 by design.

[Mussels]

its not so much a difference in architecture either, some companies (photoshop) chose to be exclusively mac for a while - because macs were an 'elite' segment that cost more, they could simply charge more and make more profit selling their software.

on PC, you have to be competitive or the millions of other cheap products beat you out.

For the same reason, PC's were full of junk apps, spyware and viruses (users fault mostly) while macs were somewhat safer - because they could do less, they were targetted less.

So you have a more expensive, but 'safer' 'less hassle' option to do the same work - business used logic and chose the macs.

[candle_86]

To anwser your gaming question its rather simple actully.

Back in 1979 The IBM PC shipped with the 8086 CPU. This was followed the PC2 system with an 80286 and MS DOS. PC systems over took the competition quite early with marking of a system for any user and it was cheaper than the competing products and even came with an Operation System so you didnt have to program the computer each use.

This meant that the game market targeted DOS over Mac because of Userbase. Dos became the defacto standard of operating systems. Mac was more user friendly but even then there was a price premium of near 700 dollars for a Mac. Then in 1995 We got Windows 95 and DirectX 3.0 which was simplier to program in than OpenGL and alot of game compaies went to DirectX which meant to make a port back to make meant rewritting the code to OpenGL first as DirectX was windows exclusive. And at that point the PC was sealed as the defacto gaming computer.

[Atnevon]

Wow. that is really cool stuff. I must say I never knew it was like that. I guess I must ask though, now that MAC have had BootCamp and other software that allow MAC users to have Windows, would it perform identically?

Also, you all mention software. I agree that MACs were a bit safer due to the amount of people using them, but now it seems the fashion icon makes them boom in buisness. However, was there a performance reason for a MAC over PC. Both then, and now? I hear things like video rendering and 3D app building applications are better on MACs, but if the hardware is so similer, does it really matter now?

OpenGL, from my understanding this is a graphic engine used in things like AutoCAD and 3D modeling, with DirectX being more Video/gaming engine line. Does this go back to MAC/PC battling?

[btarunr]

Nope, OpenGL and Direct3D are competing 3D API's (application programming interfaces) for 3D graphics of all sorts, not just that either of those are confined to a particular use. Doom 3 uses OpenGL, F.E.A.R. uses Direct3D.

[Ravenas]

Pre-Intel Macs were running in PowerPC processors, which were fast, but suffered from heat issues. That's why Powerbooks and iBooks never progressed past G4s, and I've read that Mac users who upgraded from G5 iMacs to Intel complained that their rooms were now cold. Apple switched to Intel because IBM could not keep up with what Apple wanted.

To be honest I'm not really sure why Macs became the de facto standard for graphic design, but they kinda did. A lot of creativity software was only available for Mac for quite some time, but over the past few years the line has been blurred.

Macs have also become the bar for the music industry.

@atnevon: I'm running a copy of Vista Ultimate 64-bit on my Macbook and it runs just like it does on my desktop PC.

[Steevo]

PC's use a CISC or Complex Instruction Set Computer processor. Many tasks that have multiple instructions per thread.
Mac's used to use RISC or Reduced Instruction Set Computer (or computing). Meaning that the programs were simpler and had more lines to accomplish a complex task.


http://cse.stanford.edu/class/sophomore-college/projects-00/risc/risccisc/

This is a good read on the differences.


The primary reason for the move from RISC to CISC for Apple was the speed, in complex siturations a RISC need to run at higher clock cycles to achieve the same performance as a CISC processor when using multiple steps to a process that it can do in a few cycles as opposed to the wait times for a RISC to move, execute, load, unload.



They both have their benefits, with the majority of server class hardware using RISC due to the pipelineing ability, as well as faster processing when doing simple tasks. Most of our computers are CISC based.

[btarunr]

LOL. x86 processors are RISC processors :roll:

PC's run x86.

The only few logical reasons behind Apple's switch to the x86 are:

1. Intel had way higher production capacity of their processors than the AIM (Apple, IBM, Motorola) that used to make their PPC chips.
2. The PPC chips would run way too hot (at least the last ones Apple used would.).


Append: x86 is not a true CISC though academically people confuse it to CISC. Intel gave the x86 microcode a big hair-cut.

[Steevo]

No.

[btarunr]

....And anyway the whole RISC < CISC thing is not what motivated Apple to make the switch. Makes little sense since the last PPC's did have extremely powerful designs and arithmetic efficiencies.

[Steevo]

They gave it a haircut after the Prescott fiasco of trying to adopt a bastardised child of RISC pipelining and CISC microcode. But they are still a CISC processor by definition, a RISC uses a few select commands multiple times, and can waste clock cycles when things need to be fetched, for database applications and web serving RISC is the better and more powerful solution clock for clock. But when you have a CISC that can run at higher clock cycles and perform the complex instructions, as well as being faster to transition to new commands they still come out on top.

[Atnevon]

They gave it a haircut after the Prescott fiasco of trying to adopt a bastardised child of RISC pipelining and CISC microcode. But they are still a CISC processor by definition, a RISC uses a few select commands multiple times, and can waste clock cycles when things need to be fetched, for database applications and web serving RISC is the better and more powerful solution clock for clock. But when you have a CISC that can run at higher clock cycles and perform the complex instructions, as well as being faster to transition to new commands they still come out on top.

Is this why people say that AMD killed the P4 when it was out? Not to start a debate war, I just heard Intel slumped the P4 but came back over AMD with the Core 2 Duos.

[erocker]

So, is Apple's and IBM's relationship over? I'm suprised we never saw the cell in a Apple product.

[candle_86]

Is this why people say that AMD killed the P4 when it was out? Not to start a debate war, I just heard Intel slumped the P4 but came back over AMD with the Core 2 Duos.

To put it simply P4 wasnt bad, AMD and Intel play cat and mouse untill 2004 and the Athlon 64.

P4 2ghz took the crown from the 1.4 thunderbird, the xp1800 took it back, the 2.53 took it from the XP2200 and the XP2800 took it back, the P4 3.2 took it back and the Athlon 64 came out.

[Mussels]

To put it simply P4 wasnt bad, AMD and Intel play cat and mouse untill 2004 and the Athlon 64.

P4 2ghz took the crown from the 1.4 thunderbird, the xp1800 took it back, the 2.53 took it from the XP2200 and the XP2800 took it back, the P4 3.2 took it back and the Athlon 64 came out.

quite a good summary.

P4 3.2 did indeed pwn the heck out of the athlon XP, its just that the athlon64 had a long winning streak.

Took intel a while to come out with the core2, but it was sure worth teh wait.

[btarunr]

So, is Apple's and IBM's relationship over? I'm suprised we never saw the cell in a Apple product.

Yes, you can assume that. The CELL Broadband engine was never attempted to be ported to mainstream computing, it's only had applications in the PS3 and some prototype Bravia display panels from Sony. IBM is just a participant in the CELL project, it doesn't own it.