Re(2): [Ti] A different view on Intel/Apple marriage

[Yuta Hsu]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 6:55 PM, Hector Luna wrote:

> I keep wondering about the RISC v. CISC debates. RISC was supposed to
> be better, damn the clockspeeds. That was supposed to be the reason I
> could run Garageband, iPhoto and iMovie simulaneously on my Ti550,
> while my x86, dual 1.5 P4 XP box chokes when trying to manage
> resources between Excel, Outlook and Firefox. So what now? Is it the
> OS then? Is it the vertical integration?
>
> Are we getting sold down the river for the same clockspeed we've been
> told for years didn't matter?

I wonder the same thing, but then I realize a few things:

- RISC vs. CISC is moot for the majority of people.  We live in a  
market-driven economy, and the best technical solution doesn't always  
win out.  Mac vs. Windows is a spectacular example of that.  A car  
analogy:  the rotary engine can give more horsepower per liter vs.  
the piston engine, but only Mazda's RX-8 uses one.  A food analogy:   
Over 3 billion served by McDonald's.  The reason you could run  
Garageband, iPhoto, & iMovie while your x86 choked was more because  
of the OS than anything else, but Intel didn't make an issue about  
that, they made the issue MHz.

- Another part of that is Apple's full control of the hardware and  
software.  As you said, our Macs 'just work', and that's because  
there are no unknowns between the hardware & software.  Microsoft has  
to second-guess because there are too many configurations of hardware  
with components from so many companies they can't guarantee 'plug &  
play'.  That's why Macs work so well... the integration of hardware &  
software.

- The clockspeed doesn't matter story still holds.  I truly believe  
that you get more bang for your clock-cycle with the PPC vs. x86.   
But Steve made a good point... that's not the issue anymore.  The G5  
is a spectacular chip, but what good does that do me when I need  
mobility, and I can't have a Powerbook G5?  Intel has a plan for  
chips that give more bang per watt, which is of vital importance,  
especially in the mobile market.

I am cautiously optimistic.  Apple's been planning for this since the  
beginning of OS X, so they've done their homework.  Intel's roadmap  
gives more capabilities for more form-factors (desktop & laptop)  
sooner than the PPC roadmap.  As long as the integration of hardware  
& software remains,  I'm not sure I care.  More than anything, my  
user experience makes the Mac... and I don't see that experience  
changing.

Cheers,
Yuta