The move from a PowerPC iBook G4 to a Core 2 Duo Macbook in 2006 was immense. Can't remember ever seeing such a boost between generations. Turned a laptop from a secondary machine into a primary machine.
That's so true. Before that, people had laptops as mobile workstations, but would reserve any heavy duty computing to desktop PCs at their office or home.
1:25 “nobody saw coming” no, it was heavily rumoured. I was on the live IRC chat (like Twitter but a firehose) when the announcement was made, and everybody screamed in pain. But leading up to it everybody was asking the question.
I always assumed that keeping the external design basically identical during their architecture transitions (and that's true in all cases: Intel to ARM, PowerPC to Intel, and even 68k to PowerPC) was an intentional choice: I assumed that perhaps they wanted to show people that "it's very different inside, but it's still the same product", so as not to alienate the die-hard fans who would fear Macs turning into just another PC brand. I don't know if that's true, but it always felt like that to me. It also really fascinates me how the Mac managed to stay a consistent, continuous line of products through so many hardware and software transitions. 68k to PPC, Old World to New World, Classic Mac OS to OS X, PPC to Intel, Intel to ARM... modern Macs have exactly *nothing* in common with the original Mac 68k, backwards compatibility was broken many times, almost intentionally - and yet, it's still the Mac. It's almost surreal. However, I wouldn't say that the move to Intel was "unexpected". Even before the official Intel transition, there were signs. Rhapsody, the early developer version of what was to become OS X, had x86 builds as early as 1998, which made people wonder. In 2002, there were reports about an x86 version of OS X being "secretly" maintained, with various rumors circulating ever since. I remember there being a bit of a "will they or won't they" aura about the impending transition, but nobody was truly surprised when it happened. Just like when they announced the more recent transition to ARM.
Hey, that’s an interesting point, the design thing! I always thought about it as just a lazy move lol. I don’t know, for some reason the Apple silicon switch was more natural/less unexpected than the Intel switch, just given the intense rivalry they had before.
The reason then, just as with the switch to Apple Silicon, was to show that it wasn't the design of the machines that was the problem. By keeping the design the exact same, they showed that just by switching the CPU, the machines would get much more efficient. If they had changed other things at the same time, people would have said "how do we know that it is really the new CPU that is making it much more efficient?".
Apple wanted thinner laptops with the power of an i9, but it was so thermally crippled by that super thin design - you could never fully utilize the CPU+GPU. Apple gave Intel every opportunity to 'fix' their x86 processors, designed entire systems around efficiency promises that never bore fruit and the best anyone got was the 12in MacBook and it was a giant disappointment. I don't think it would be bold to claim that custom silicon iPads at the time (looking beyond iPadOS's uselessness as a computer) squeezed out more raw performance (and certainly more performance per watt) than the best macbooks at the time could muster because x86 machines would immediately have to throttle just opening a web tab. (also, x86 laptops intentionally curtail their performance on batter power)
Hey, all good points! I personally never really had a use for an iPad, but it was around 2017 I believe, when I had some first hand experience with one, that I first thought to myself: “Yeah, they’re going to put this in a MacBook at some point”.
What’s interesting to me is that it was essentially the same issues that lead to the original switch to intel. Stagnation and lack of interest from first Motorola, then IBM pushed them to intel. I think Apple decided the best hands to leave silicon development in were there own, and they had the wherewithal to do it.
agreed, nearly identical motivators with regards to thermal limitations and efficiency - intel was king of the walk through the 2000’s and most of the 2010’s, resting on minor incremental improvements year over year, because they had no direct competitor following the release of the core 2 duo and the core I processors. As I recall, AMD bulldozer didn’t live up to expectations so Intel was trying to ride the wave they created for themselves for over a decade and everyone else just ended up blowing past them.
@@SweetSweetCandyBoyz yeah, the bulldozer architecture was a serious misstep on AMDs part. In some ways it was as big a contributed to the apple’s move to ARM as anything else. When bulldozer and its derivatives were the main and product, intel realized they essentially had the market and instead of using that time period to cement there lead, they did the opposite and gutted some of there core departments to focus on other growth areas. It’s not hard to see why apple was so frustrated and left.
Apple gave oportunity to intel? What the hell? In a very thin laptop there s no enough airflow to cool the chips I have used a 2020 asus i9 laptop and only gets warm. Do you think some company like intel is gonna change the chip design for a company that doesnt have more than 10% market share? The problem with Apple is they prioritize looks over function even M4 can run full power because the noise curve software throttles the M4 chip so it cant be noisier. So for Apple is more important a quiet laptop than a powerful noisy laptop.
Macs using Intel chips was the main reason kept me from using a Mac until 2017. If all I’m getting is the same standard hardware to the PCs, then it could not justify the high prices, I wanted Macs to be special, just like the iPhones and iPads. But I switched to Mac in 2017 because fxxking Microsoft kept pissing me off with Windows 8 and 10. Windows 7, the best Windows ever, was getting old and becoming less and less useful. Now I’m on an M1 Mac mini and I’m very happy with it, it’s the Macs I wanted.
I don’t think too many “regular” customers even knew or cared about the actual processor architecture (like me, when I was a kid), but I do get your point. Anyway, hope your Mac serves you for years to come 🤟
There is a slight difference however. Macs even intel ones were hardware and software coupled which is always going to provide a superior end user experience. Windows machines whilst you can get better speeds sometime because windows is designed to work on as many different hardware configs as possible. You lose in many other areas like stability and fatally security. Arm was always the better option. And I really still have no clue why they could have just developed their own arm chips around the G4/5 days. I think the bottleneck may have been they had no OsX that could run on arm then and it took maturity with the iPhone to get there. But it’s something that still annoys me. Intel Macs were a historical error.
The significance of the Intel transition is that it gave Apple the confidence to transition to ARM with Rosetta 2. They knew how to do it and that they are capable to bring the entire ecosystem along.
10:40 the Core Duo model was also dual core, all Intel Macs got dual core processors except the mac mini, which got the Core SOLO. main difference is that core duo is 32bit and core 2 duo 64bit
I bought a PowerMac G4 with dual 1.25 GHz CPUs in 2006 for a great price. In 2008, when the writing was really on the wall for PPC systems, I still managed to sell it for the price of a used, 2006 Mac Mini with a 1.83 GHz Core Duo, which I bought straight after selling the G4. Then in 2011 my Mini died and I got an Early 2011 13" MacBook Pro, which was thermal throttling during sustained workloads, such as video rendering. I took it back to the Apple shop where I bought it, they did replace the heatsink, fan and thermal compound, but it was still the same. Somehow I ended up using that same laptop until February of 2021 (5 months short of 10 years) when I replaced it with a MacBook Air M1, which I still use and love. It's just unbelievable how power efficient it is: at most it got warm on the bottom, even with just passive cooling.
Back then, CPU and computer performance was advancing much more rapidly than it is now. It seemed every 12 months or so, computer performance doubled. PowerPC was advancing along these lines until they got to the G4 in 1999, after which the architecture pretty much stalled. The G5 was supposed to breath new life into the architecture, but as we all know it wasn't suitable for portable machines. I remember rumors from around 2005 that Apple was working on a dual core G4 with some custom chip designer. Then they went to Intel. But the story with that chip designer doesn't end there, as Apple acquired them and it became the nucleus for Apple's in house ARM implementations. I don't know if the DC G4 was intended to be a real thing, or if Apple was using that as a sort of trial to decide whether or not to acquire that chip designer.
The "dual core G4" rumors you were thinking of probably referred to P.A. Semi, who was doing a bespoke PowerPC design called PWRficient that they tried shopping to Apple. Of course Apple by that point had already comitted to switching to Intel, but they were very impressed by what P.A. Semi did and acquired them right after PWRficient shipped to be the starting point for their current chip design team.
@@Teluric2 "they refused" = they (IBM) couldn't tape out 3GHz PowerPC 970s due to them being the same basic kind of super-pipelined naive trash design NetBurst was, everyone in the industry got caught flat footed by this to a greater or lesser extent and it wasn't until the humiliation of the Pentium M leading to the Core series that Intel course corrected and with them the industry at large
@netdoll no..in a CNN interview IBM oficial said Apple never had enough sales to drive them to make a 3ghz version. I think that you want to make Apple look like everybody was doing what Apple wanted. You re wrong ppc970 was an IBM POWER 4 cpu sliced in 2 and this chip has 2 cores and was succesfully used on servers
In 2006 I upgraded from a Blue & White 'Yosemite' Power Mac G3 upgraded with an aftermarket PowerLogix 1.1GHz G3 and Radeon 9200 PCI to a 20" Core 2 Duo iMac Late 2006 with a Radeon x1600, and yeah the performance improvement especially with gaming was massive - also my first introduction to dual-booting and Windows gaming.
the move from power pc to tel was really a good idea the machines were really behind but for apple silicon the desktop macs have become bad especially imac/mac por
Great video! The intel iMac can easily handle UA-cam in 720p or possibly even 1080p if upgraded to a higher OS like Lion or unsupported Mountain Lion, and getting Chromium Legacy browser, which is a modern build of Chrome for older OSs. Unfortunately Chromium legacy does not support anything lower than Lion.
I still have my PPC G4 eMac with Tiger on it. I haven't used it in years, but I remember it using it alongside my Dell Dimension 4400 with a 1.6 GHz Pentium 4, and was blown away that a 1 GHz PPC CPU could outperform a 1.6 GHz Intel CPU. It was my first real world lesson that the hare is not always faster than the tortoise.
The first gen Intel iMacs were dual core as they were a core duo chip, what they weren’t was 64bit, which the core 2 duo chips onward were. This was the reason the early 2006 core duo models cannot be made to run Lion and stopped at Snow Leopard. This seemed a silly move as the G5 was advertised as being the first true 64 bit system for consumer use on release, so goi g 64 bit, back to 32 bit then 64 bit again seems odd when you look at the overall roadmap, but there you have it. Apple have always had their oddball moments, this was another of them
Yeah, I misspoke about that, I got Core Solo/Duo mixed up. As far as the bits go, like I’ve said, Core Duo weren’t really sold for a long time, they switched to Core 2 Duo quite quickly, so I don’t know 😂
@@schvabek true, I got one and it’s ok as a machine, I also have the 2006 Mac Pro, upgraded to silly specs with dual 4 core xeons, 26GB ram and more storage than I can remember, had it not been for the 32bit EFI, it would run the current OS with room to spare (it keeps up with my 2018 i7 MacBook Pro in video rendering). Not got an M chip Mac yet, but for my current projects I don’t really need one yet
Hardly - moving from 68k to PPC solved the same problem as PPC to x86, from x86 to x86-64 and from there to Apple Silicon. The one time they tried to get more juice from the squeeze, the IIgs, they couldn't get enough reliable high mhz chips.
Great video. About those core 2 and core processors: the intel core duo is also a dual core cpu it’s just 32 bit. The core 2 duo is a 64 bit dual core. There was an intel core solo. But these are rather rare. :)
In terms of proprietary equipment for the average consumer, absolutely. However, the older Lenovo ThinkPad is incredibly durable and easily repairable, and companies like MNT and Framework create awesome Open-Source self repairable laptops too!
Apparently apple had an x86 build of osx before the official switch and before the official consumer release of osx. I came across someone installing rhapsody which was Apparently for devs way back.
OS X dates back to NeXTStep, then OpenStep. Originally developed for the 68k based NeXT cube it was then ported to various platforms. Apple bought NeXT not for Jobs or it's hardware, but for the OS as the original MacOS had gone pretty much as far as it could go.
@cjmillsnun yes I've been told about that but I'm taking about apple rhapsody before the osx unveiling. I saw about it on some channel called retrospace or something they were installing it.
@@schvabek probably because the x86 version of mac os I'm talking about was apparently available by 98 before a complete overhaul it looks slightly different from the public offering and was still using platinum not aqua
@@UbuntuPersonNoMint Yes, Rhapsody was the intermediate stage between OpenStep and OS X. NeXTStep/OpenStep were always written in high-level languages and designed to be highly portable. Technically OS X was on ARM all the way back in 2007 because iOS itself uses the same core as OS X.
I remember when they went from 68040 (Quadra lineup) to PPC… I think because the 68060 was very delayed, never really came to market (Commodore went bust before 060 arrived, iirc NexT were the only ones to ever use 060 CPUs ?). But, System 7 was very very slow on PPC early versions like the 601….
I wonder if many of these apps were limited by them being single threaded. It was an issue where many things from that era were not multi threaded meaning you wouldn’t always notice the difference if you had a single core system vs a dual core system. It’s like how some games from the 2010s were often limited to 4 cores despite there being more cores available on some processors. With the last of the Intel Macs Apple did do some pretty awful thermal management with their laptops with them often thermal throttling hard and being unable to boost unlike similarly equipped PC laptops with more robust cooling. Apple wanted everything to be as sleek and quiet, thermals didn’t matter
I get the M-series argument for "efficiency" from apple's perspective, but I can simply not understand how Users actually follow it. At the prices M-series have brought, you can get an even slimmer notebook and even more powerful server (or off-site PC), even if you rent the server.
What do you mean? It's a laptop that can get 20 hours of battery life and I can actually put in my lap because it doesn't generate much heat. In terms of specifically buying a laptop, there's no real competition. If you don't need a laptop that's fine, but having the M-series machines has been a serious gamechanger for my workflow because I don't need to worry about finding power everywhere I go.
Battery life is a BIG one. My 4 years old M1 MacBook Air still gets an all-day battery life with no fans at all while barely getting warm, when my Ryzen laptop gets like 6 hours of battery (still pretty good considering it has an OLED screen) and blasts the fans when doing anything remotely heavy (like watching a 4K video). My base Mac Mini M4 is maybe a little slower than my main gaming PC for video editing, but it does it with only 40W at worst while not making any sounds, while my desktop sounds like a jet engine and takes hundreds of watts. A MacBook Pro gets the exact same performances on battery or when connected, while a normal workstation loses like a third of its performances on battery (and has a two hours battery life, against a 10 hours MacBook Pro 16). Efficiency is crazy important for energy consumption (especially considering how the prices exploded in a lot of countries) and for laptops, there's just no SoC with the same power-per-watt available for the regular market.
I remember when my elementary school both used PPC and Intel Macs back in the day of the 2010’s (Despite the fact the Intel Ones were more powerful). I never used them due to them only being used by staff and a few gifted students and only remembered using the Dell Dimension XP Machines
@@BrainDamageIV Hey, that’s very cool. Doesn’t surprise me, I mean in they were probably 5-10 years old at that point, I’m using a 5 year old computer still. It’s funny that the Apple computers were “reserved” for the gifted students, while the rest of the plebeians got Dells 😂
Yea it was quite weird, But I would later find out they would stop using macs in favor of Windows 10 (Which was ahead of its time for us elementary students)
After decades of whining about "Windoze," CISC, and multiple-button mice, etc., Apple turned the pathetic Mac into a PC. Surprised no one. The PC was always superior, and always will be. No need for a video to explain this.
I don't think this was Apple's hardest decision. In fact, the move to Intel should have happened sooner than it did. For many years after the acquisition of NeXT and the creation of Mac OS X from the NeXTSTEP OS, there were rumors that Apple had a secret Intel build of OS X. I always thought these rumors were odd because NeXTSTEP had been ported to Intel in the early 90s. Apple wouldn't have tossed out the Intel build of the OS. They had also given an early developer build of what later became Mac OS X to developers. It ran on Intel. I too still have a 2019 core i9 MacBook Pro. It is no longer my daily computer since I now have an M2 Max 14-inch MacBook Pro. I can still use the Intel MacBook Pro for most things. It's in pristine condition too.
Back when Intel was top dog in CPU manufactoring and no one could possibly compete with the almighty Intel in terms of performance and CPU manufactoring .... man have times changed in a simple decade later Apple's decision.
Apple - has transitioned their software to completely different ISAs three separate times Microsoft - Windows still hasn't fully transitioned to 64-bit I'm being a little bit harsh but it's mind-boggling how unportable Windows has turned out to be. NT was originally supposed to their elite workstation OS that could run on fancy SPARC and PowerPC systems, but in 2024 they're still struggling to get it working fully on anything that isn't x86. Hell it still has large discrepancies in performance between Intel and AMD CPUs.
"A cheap piece of shit non-Apple monitor" Nothing like those unexpected descriptors that let you know you're accessing genuine, unpretentious, non-AI generated audio. My compliments 😂.
‼️ 10:40 please clarify. Both Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are dual core. Secondly, the first series was Core then Core 2 followed. Finally, EVERY Intel Mac ever made had no fewer than 2 cores EXCEPT the 1.5ghz Core Solo Mac mini. That is the ONLY single core Intel Mac ever.
Oh the dark times of Intel Macs. It wasn’t hard for Apple though as they had already got working versions of intel Nextstep. And essentially they just had to switch out the lower level code and stick the high level XNU stuff on top. No big deal.
What a lot of people don't realize is that Apple really didn't have a choice doing this... The Power PC chips were being bought up by the gaming console makers. Sony and Microsoft. So apple needed to fins another chip source. Luckily/smartly Steve Jobs was developing two versions of OSX (power pc and intel) at the time.
This was SOOOOOOOOO GOOD!!! 😍😍😍 I'm definitely gonna have to re-watch this again later on and/or in the morning to really process all of this, and to be more immersed without paying attention to the chat window! I'd love to know what inspired you to give music a try with this one? Perhaps just for the sake of giving it a try? Even though your videos don't typically NEED music, this was VERY NICE and I'm glad you decided to give it a try! You also did a great job getting adjusted to balancing the audio levels of the background music combined with the voiceovers... it can be a fine line sometimes to avoid having voice sounding like it's "yelling" or "fighting" over the music, or the music sounding too quiet or non-existent to even be there in the first place... this was basically BANG ON! For any fine adjustments moving forward, I would say to keep paying attention to the background music like you did here, and maaaybe drop it a dB or two so it doesn't try to overpower your softer spoken voice, but that's just for the sake of very fine adjustments- all in all, this is GREAT and you did an EXCELLENT JOB with the audio editing! Oh, and of course the audio pauses with the transitions and use of more than one audio track for the whole production... those are all signs of an EXPERIENCED audio editor, right there! 😊 So many shots, moving shots, smooth transitions, incredible lighting effects... it's like you went to editing bootcamp or something LOL! I especially loved the GOLDEN HOUR look! And as always, the excellent storytelling and overviews of information done in a manner that's appealing to BOTH viewers who are very familiar with the subject, and to viewers who are hear learning about it and/or haven't experienced some of these machines before (like me for the desktop ones, but they were COOL!) The internet will be making a pit stop HERE during the holidays, and for the eternity of youtube, I can tell you that RIGHT NOW!!! Once again, HUGE CONGRATULATIONS on 11K!!! You are literally UNSTOPPABLE! ✨️😎🤟✨️ Thrifty 🩷🎉
@@thethriftyfawn Hey, I’m so glad you liked it ❤️ I was very anxious about it, since it was my first time including the background music. I don’t know, it kinda felt natural, since there was nothing to fix on these units, it was all just kinda showcasing the performance, so it felt kinda… fitting? I don’t know, it reminded me of some other retrospectives/documentaries I watched, with the jazzy/bluesy soundtrack, and I just decided to give it a go. I don’t think I’ll necessarily do it for every video, but I do think I’ll start including it more 😊 I really appreciate your comments and thoughts, helps me out a lot and is a huge motivation 🤟 Hopefully other people like it too. We’ll see how it performs 🙏❤️
@schvabek Hope you're feeling less anxious now! Remember- you have included music previously with your guitar playing, and AGAIN recently- you've already posted videos that included background music combined with a voiceover during the Christmas Special- so this was an EXCELLENT time to give it a try on a longer full length video! The music definitely added an extra element of interest, and certainly stylized this one- similarly to more of a documentary style of video. I agree, you definitely don't need to use music for every video, but ANY TIME it feels right, natural, suitable, or you just WANT to- GO FOR IT! You did great! We'll see how this video goes, but I'm certain anyone who chooses to watch it will be very happy and will experience enjoyment from watching it! No problem regarding the comments- even though some of my comments are kinda long sometimes lol... glad they're helpful! 😊
i wonder if you had changed the thermal paste on these machines, what kind of a difference would it have made to the temps? maybe you did it and didn't mention OR you did mention and i just didn't notice which is also highly likely haha great video tho!
@@sir_whocampsalot2876 Hey, thanks! Thermal paste has been changed when I first got these systems. These temps (especially on the G5 model) are actually quite “normal”, they are really quite inefficient
I remember coming from the Mac mini G4. Definitely a jump. My parents got me the first gen Mac mini with intel core duo (not the core 2). That was a jump in performance. Graphics in my old G4 was better in my opinion comparing it to the GMA graphics the core duo had.
I hate the last intel MacBook Pro worst purchase in my life expensive space heater indeed but with M1 Max Mac Studio couldn’t be happier absolutely perfect
Loved watching you compare the G5 and intel polycarbonate macs! I recently revived a core 2 duo machine myself that I forgot I owned, installed an SSD and 3GB of ram and it currently has Windows Vista of all things on it. If you fancy I’m happy to 3D print a few of the SSD brackets for the iMacs and send them over to you, shouldn’t be too expensive for me to send them from the UK to you :)
Hey, man, so glad you enjoyed it! I also sometimes forget what machines I own lol. That’s so generous of you! Tell you what, after I move, I’ll set up an address for people to send me stuff, and if you’d like to print a couple of those brackets and send them in, I’ll be delighted to have them. Happy holidays! 🤟❤️
@@schvabeksounds like a plan, if you want to see what they look like they’re in my latest video/ in the description of it has the thingiverse link. Have a great rest of the year and a happy new year!
It would have been better to for example in Doom 3 run the built in benchmark. You open the console and put in " timedemo demo1" (no quotes) and press enter. Could have pressed enter on both systems at the same time and seen which one finished first and had the best FPS
I'll TRY to get here for the premiere today, but if I miss it I will watch the video as soon as possible after! If there's an upload on Monday, I will likely miss the premiere due to an appointment, and will likely be [very] late seeing the video as well- just a heads up! 🙂
Apple needs to stop focusing on smaller thinner, and expecting it to work. Sooner or later this will happen too with their own. They can get destroyingly hot too. Sooner or later, they'll hit a wall with that to. The G5 PowerPC back in 2003/04 which kinda similar to Arm arch, couldn't even get that in a mobile Mac. Besides I prefer desktops and build my own PCs, way cheaper and easier to work with anyways. But don't use windows, Linux is great. And before you say what about warranty, you, you're your own warranty especially if you know how. It's not hard to do whatsoever. Just don't be careless unlike a lot of times I see with so banged up laptops and they think it'll still work, yea don't make me laugh on that one. It'll fail way faster if it still does at 1st work after whatever damage done to it and will be expensive if one insists on true repair of it, also true with any mobile whatever including iPhone and ipad.
The move wasn’t a surprise at all, it had been rumoured for a long time and NextStep was originally designed to be portable across architectures. It was a time when chip makers believed Moore’s law meant doubling the clock speed of their chips every two years. And Intel just released Core and were absolutely dominating AMD. I remember them releasing the G4 + G5 and having a massive performance advantage over x86 chips, and that advantage quickly eroding as Motorola and then IBM both failed at the fabrication table to produce these chips. I feel like this was the time Apple stopped making regular hardware upgrades to Macs, because newer chips weren’t available. Definitely not a surprise transition, but a surprise how smooth it went, and also the x86 to Apple Silicon. And advantage I put down to Apple’s narrow hardware selection and ruthless upgrade strategy.
PowerPC was in some way better than Intel which make it very hard decision now Intel CPU is a sucky piece of crap moving to ARM processor was very easy decision.
I disagree. Twenty years ago, I bought my first Apple computer, a PowerBook G4 12-inch PPC architecture, so I know more of the story. (Starting my Ph.D. degree) The company that made the original G4 and G5 Motorola/IBM (PowerPC) decided they would not develop new chips, so the MAC will stop the performance of new chips, contrary to Pentium and AMD that increase the power of their chips to make better IBM-compatible computers. Microsoft was a partner of Mac computers because Word/Excel/PowerPoint have their exclusive editions for Macs, and they work better than the Windows versions. My first PowerBook G4 had a 35W charger, contrary to Intel Pentiums, which had a 65W charger (less powerful Celeron had only 45W chargers). Thus, there was no competition for "energy performance"; it was only a problem of raw computer power. But in 2007, the Mac, as expected, presented the iPhone... most companies thought that the product would be only a new try to make the PDA like the previous Apple Newton... but the iPhone changed mobile phones forever. They designed a new concept of "smartphones" with the help of Samsung. Samsung produced the parts (for the iPhone), copied them, and improved them to make their exceptional smartphones. The iPhone had a market like any other Mac product, and their first move was to go to Intel and ask to develop new chips for the iPhones and iPads. Intel said that they were not interested in ARM chips. So, with the extra cash, they bought P.A. Semi to develop those ARM chips for the new mobile devices (iPod, iPhone, and iPad)... ARM chips are power efficient but not as powerful as x86 processors... until the iPhone 11 Pro, which was more able to process a 4K video than the MacBook Pro with Intel processors. In 2020, the M1 was presented... and Apple led the way for more power efficiency and high-performance chips for the first time.
@@schvabek It is only an exaggeration for the misleading term "Power efficiency." 20 years ago, I struggled to use Windows or Linux on my laptop for the laboratory. A friend bought a Power Mac G5 and was using it when I found the Linux basis for the MAC OSX. A PowerBook G4 12-inch was lighter and had better screen resolution than my Windows/Linux laptop... Later, working with the laptop, I found that the battery allowed me to use it for 8 hours, while a Windows computer had a battery for 2-3 hours. In 2005, the importance was only the CPU computer power. When Apple showed the M1, was Intel and AMD the people who said "Power efficiency" because their x86 chips were more powerful (10%), but used 5-6 times the electric power.
The move from a PowerPC iBook G4 to a Core 2 Duo Macbook in 2006 was immense. Can't remember ever seeing such a boost between generations. Turned a laptop from a secondary machine into a primary machine.
That's so true. Before that, people had laptops as mobile workstations, but would reserve any heavy duty computing to desktop PCs at their office or home.
1:25 “nobody saw coming” no, it was heavily rumoured. I was on the live IRC chat (like Twitter but a firehose) when the announcement was made, and everybody screamed in pain. But leading up to it everybody was asking the question.
I always assumed that keeping the external design basically identical during their architecture transitions (and that's true in all cases: Intel to ARM, PowerPC to Intel, and even 68k to PowerPC) was an intentional choice: I assumed that perhaps they wanted to show people that "it's very different inside, but it's still the same product", so as not to alienate the die-hard fans who would fear Macs turning into just another PC brand. I don't know if that's true, but it always felt like that to me.
It also really fascinates me how the Mac managed to stay a consistent, continuous line of products through so many hardware and software transitions. 68k to PPC, Old World to New World, Classic Mac OS to OS X, PPC to Intel, Intel to ARM... modern Macs have exactly *nothing* in common with the original Mac 68k, backwards compatibility was broken many times, almost intentionally - and yet, it's still the Mac. It's almost surreal.
However, I wouldn't say that the move to Intel was "unexpected". Even before the official Intel transition, there were signs. Rhapsody, the early developer version of what was to become OS X, had x86 builds as early as 1998, which made people wonder. In 2002, there were reports about an x86 version of OS X being "secretly" maintained, with various rumors circulating ever since. I remember there being a bit of a "will they or won't they" aura about the impending transition, but nobody was truly surprised when it happened. Just like when they announced the more recent transition to ARM.
Hey, that’s an interesting point, the design thing! I always thought about it as just a lazy move lol.
I don’t know, for some reason the Apple silicon switch was more natural/less unexpected than the Intel switch, just given the intense rivalry they had before.
Saying Apple is surreal is very cultist. The older intel macs never had the issues modern macs have.
The reason then, just as with the switch to Apple Silicon, was to show that it wasn't the design of the machines that was the problem. By keeping the design the exact same, they showed that just by switching the CPU, the machines would get much more efficient. If they had changed other things at the same time, people would have said "how do we know that it is really the new CPU that is making it much more efficient?".
Apple wanted thinner laptops with the power of an i9, but it was so thermally crippled by that super thin design - you could never fully utilize the CPU+GPU. Apple gave Intel every opportunity to 'fix' their x86 processors, designed entire systems around efficiency promises that never bore fruit and the best anyone got was the 12in MacBook and it was a giant disappointment.
I don't think it would be bold to claim that custom silicon iPads at the time (looking beyond iPadOS's uselessness as a computer) squeezed out more raw performance (and certainly more performance per watt) than the best macbooks at the time could muster because x86 machines would immediately have to throttle just opening a web tab. (also, x86 laptops intentionally curtail their performance on batter power)
Hey, all good points! I personally never really had a use for an iPad, but it was around 2017 I believe, when I had some first hand experience with one, that I first thought to myself: “Yeah, they’re going to put this in a MacBook at some point”.
What’s interesting to me is that it was essentially the same issues that lead to the original switch to intel. Stagnation and lack of interest from first Motorola, then IBM pushed them to intel. I think Apple decided the best hands to leave silicon development in were there own, and they had the wherewithal to do it.
agreed, nearly identical motivators with regards to thermal limitations and efficiency - intel was king of the walk through the 2000’s and most of the 2010’s, resting on minor incremental improvements year over year, because they had no direct competitor following the release of the core 2 duo and the core I processors. As I recall, AMD bulldozer didn’t live up to expectations so Intel was trying to ride the wave they created for themselves for over a decade and everyone else just ended up blowing past them.
@@SweetSweetCandyBoyz yeah, the bulldozer architecture was a serious misstep on AMDs part. In some ways it was as big a contributed to the apple’s move to ARM as anything else. When bulldozer and its derivatives were the main and product, intel realized they essentially had the market and instead of using that time period to cement there lead, they did the opposite and gutted some of there core departments to focus on other growth areas. It’s not hard to see why apple was so frustrated and left.
Apple gave oportunity to intel? What the hell? In a very thin laptop there s no enough airflow to cool the chips I have used a 2020 asus i9 laptop and only gets warm.
Do you think some company like intel is gonna change the chip design for a company that doesnt have more than 10% market share?
The problem with Apple is they prioritize looks over function even M4 can run full power because the noise curve software throttles the M4 chip so it cant be noisier.
So for Apple is more important a quiet laptop than a powerful noisy laptop.
Macs using Intel chips was the main reason kept me from using a Mac until 2017. If all I’m getting is the same standard hardware to the PCs, then it could not justify the high prices, I wanted Macs to be special, just like the iPhones and iPads. But I switched to Mac in 2017 because fxxking Microsoft kept pissing me off with Windows 8 and 10. Windows 7, the best Windows ever, was getting old and becoming less and less useful. Now I’m on an M1 Mac mini and I’m very happy with it, it’s the Macs I wanted.
I don’t think too many “regular” customers even knew or cared about the actual processor architecture (like me, when I was a kid), but I do get your point. Anyway, hope your Mac serves you for years to come 🤟
There is a slight difference however. Macs even intel ones were hardware and software coupled which is always going to provide a superior end user experience. Windows machines whilst you can get better speeds sometime because windows is designed to work on as many different hardware configs as possible. You lose in many other areas like stability and fatally security. Arm was always the better option. And I really still have no clue why they could have just developed their own arm chips around the G4/5 days. I think the bottleneck may have been they had no OsX that could run on arm then and it took maturity with the iPhone to get there. But it’s something that still annoys me. Intel Macs were a historical error.
You are special
The significance of the Intel transition is that it gave Apple the confidence to transition to ARM with Rosetta 2. They knew how to do it and that they are capable to bring the entire ecosystem along.
Find a pro doing heavy work that can work on windows on parallels.
@ What the fuck are you talking about?
Watching this video on a M1 Macbook Air, Power efficiency of M series chips are insane when compared to my Intel Macbook Pro.
10:40 the Core Duo model was also dual core, all Intel Macs got dual core processors except the mac mini, which got the Core SOLO.
main difference is that core duo is 32bit and core 2 duo 64bit
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Core Duo Mac Minis shipped at the same time as the Core Solo models did.
@@superstar64base model mini was core solo. Could be specced with Core Duo tho
I bought a PowerMac G4 with dual 1.25 GHz CPUs in 2006 for a great price. In 2008, when the writing was really on the wall for PPC systems, I still managed to sell it for the price of a used, 2006 Mac Mini with a 1.83 GHz Core Duo, which I bought straight after selling the G4. Then in 2011 my Mini died and I got an Early 2011 13" MacBook Pro, which was thermal throttling during sustained workloads, such as video rendering. I took it back to the Apple shop where I bought it, they did replace the heatsink, fan and thermal compound, but it was still the same. Somehow I ended up using that same laptop until February of 2021 (5 months short of 10 years) when I replaced it with a MacBook Air M1, which I still use and love. It's just unbelievable how power efficient it is: at most it got warm on the bottom, even with just passive cooling.
10:39
core duo is 32 bit
core 2 duo is 64 bit
core solo is the single core cpu
Yep, I got Core Solo/Duo mixed up.
Back then, CPU and computer performance was advancing much more rapidly than it is now. It seemed every 12 months or so, computer performance doubled. PowerPC was advancing along these lines until they got to the G4 in 1999, after which the architecture pretty much stalled. The G5 was supposed to breath new life into the architecture, but as we all know it wasn't suitable for portable machines. I remember rumors from around 2005 that Apple was working on a dual core G4 with some custom chip designer. Then they went to Intel. But the story with that chip designer doesn't end there, as Apple acquired them and it became the nucleus for Apple's in house ARM implementations. I don't know if the DC G4 was intended to be a real thing, or if Apple was using that as a sort of trial to decide whether or not to acquire that chip designer.
The "dual core G4" rumors you were thinking of probably referred to P.A. Semi, who was doing a bespoke PowerPC design called PWRficient that they tried shopping to Apple. Of course Apple by that point had already comitted to switching to Intel, but they were very impressed by what P.A. Semi did and acquired them right after PWRficient shipped to be the starting point for their current chip design team.
No..Apple never worked on a new chip..They asked IBM to make a 3ghz ppc version and they refused.
@@Teluric2 "they refused" = they (IBM) couldn't tape out 3GHz PowerPC 970s due to them being the same basic kind of super-pipelined naive trash design NetBurst was, everyone in the industry got caught flat footed by this to a greater or lesser extent and it wasn't until the humiliation of the Pentium M leading to the Core series that Intel course corrected and with them the industry at large
@netdoll no..in a CNN interview IBM oficial said Apple never had enough sales to drive them to make a 3ghz version.
I think that you want to make Apple look like everybody was doing what Apple wanted.
You re wrong ppc970 was an IBM POWER 4 cpu sliced in 2 and this chip has 2 cores and was succesfully used on servers
@netdoll ppc970 is trash. So you know better than IBM chip experts?
In 2006 I upgraded from a Blue & White 'Yosemite' Power Mac G3 upgraded with an aftermarket PowerLogix 1.1GHz G3 and Radeon 9200 PCI to a 20" Core 2 Duo iMac Late 2006 with a Radeon x1600, and yeah the performance improvement especially with gaming was massive - also my first introduction to dual-booting and Windows gaming.
The Apple CPU lesson I didn't know I needed. Thanks.
Hey, glad you found the video informative! Cheers! 🤟
i will complain to Ms.Schvabek that you were saying "love you" to random guys on the internet
Poor Ms. Schvabek 😂
the move from power pc to tel was really a good idea the machines were really behind but for apple silicon the desktop macs have become bad especially imac/mac por
@@TechGameDev Yep. We’ll see why exactly in the video 🤟
mac mini isn't bad but imac is ridiculous
What do you mean they've become bad? You mean bad ass?
lol from something that sounded like it was taking of to dead silent, you think intel desktops was better haha yeah sure
*Mac Pro
My 17” C2D MacBook Pro was a total game changer compared to the G4. But it did used to burn my legs a bit 😅
Loved the video. I can tell that the production is getting better with the new camera and better mac you really deserve it. Keep up the work 🙂
@@sewanlel8322 Glad you liked the quality of the video man 🤟❤️
Great video!
The intel iMac can easily handle UA-cam in 720p or possibly even 1080p if upgraded to a higher OS like Lion or unsupported Mountain Lion, and getting Chromium Legacy browser, which is a modern build of Chrome for older OSs. Unfortunately Chromium legacy does not support anything lower than Lion.
I still have my PPC G4 eMac with Tiger on it. I haven't used it in years, but I remember it using it alongside my Dell Dimension 4400 with a 1.6 GHz Pentium 4, and was blown away that a 1 GHz PPC CPU could outperform a 1.6 GHz Intel CPU. It was my first real world lesson that the hare is not always faster than the tortoise.
The first gen Intel iMacs were dual core as they were a core duo chip, what they weren’t was 64bit, which the core 2 duo chips onward were. This was the reason the early 2006 core duo models cannot be made to run Lion and stopped at Snow Leopard.
This seemed a silly move as the G5 was advertised as being the first true 64 bit system for consumer use on release, so goi g 64 bit, back to 32 bit then 64 bit again seems odd when you look at the overall roadmap, but there you have it.
Apple have always had their oddball moments, this was another of them
Yeah, I misspoke about that, I got Core Solo/Duo mixed up.
As far as the bits go, like I’ve said, Core Duo weren’t really sold for a long time, they switched to Core 2 Duo quite quickly, so I don’t know 😂
@@schvabek true, I got one and it’s ok as a machine, I also have the 2006 Mac Pro, upgraded to silly specs with dual 4 core xeons, 26GB ram and more storage than I can remember, had it not been for the 32bit EFI, it would run the current OS with room to spare (it keeps up with my 2018 i7 MacBook Pro in video rendering).
Not got an M chip Mac yet, but for my current projects I don’t really need one yet
Hardly - moving from 68k to PPC solved the same problem as PPC to x86, from x86 to x86-64 and from there to Apple Silicon. The one time they tried to get more juice from the squeeze, the IIgs, they couldn't get enough reliable high mhz chips.
Great video. About those core 2 and core processors: the intel core duo is also a dual core cpu it’s just 32 bit. The core 2 duo is a 64 bit dual core. There was an intel core solo. But these are rather rare. :)
Thanks! Yeah, I got Core Solo/Duo mixed up
apple made the best laptop on the market after switching to their own chips, second is asus
Yeah, we’ll compare Intel to M series in a future episode! 🤟
In terms of proprietary equipment for the average consumer, absolutely. However, the older Lenovo ThinkPad is incredibly durable and easily repairable, and companies like MNT and Framework create awesome Open-Source self repairable laptops too!
No..lenovo is better
Apparently apple had an x86 build of osx before the official switch and before the official consumer release of osx. I came across someone installing rhapsody which was Apparently for devs way back.
@@UbuntuPersonNoMint When they were doing the reveal at the 2005 WWDC, they were actually running their main computer on an Pentium IV
OS X dates back to NeXTStep, then OpenStep. Originally developed for the 68k based NeXT cube it was then ported to various platforms. Apple bought NeXT not for Jobs or it's hardware, but for the OS as the original MacOS had gone pretty much as far as it could go.
@cjmillsnun yes I've been told about that but I'm taking about apple rhapsody before the osx unveiling. I saw about it on some channel called retrospace or something they were installing it.
@@schvabek probably because the x86 version of mac os I'm talking about was apparently available by 98 before a complete overhaul it looks slightly different from the public offering and was still using platinum not aqua
@@UbuntuPersonNoMint Yes, Rhapsody was the intermediate stage between OpenStep and OS X. NeXTStep/OpenStep were always written in high-level languages and designed to be highly portable. Technically OS X was on ARM all the way back in 2007 because iOS itself uses the same core as OS X.
I remember when they went from 68040 (Quadra lineup) to PPC… I think because the 68060 was very delayed, never really came to market (Commodore went bust before 060 arrived, iirc NexT were the only ones to ever use 060 CPUs ?). But, System 7 was very very slow on PPC early versions like the 601….
The entire premise of this video is a lie. Apple's switch from powerpc to Intel x86 was not a surprise at all.
I wonder if many of these apps were limited by them being single threaded. It was an issue where many things from that era were not multi threaded meaning you wouldn’t always notice the difference if you had a single core system vs a dual core system. It’s like how some games from the 2010s were often limited to 4 cores despite there being more cores available on some processors.
With the last of the Intel Macs Apple did do some pretty awful thermal management with their laptops with them often thermal throttling hard and being unable to boost unlike similarly equipped PC laptops with more robust cooling. Apple wanted everything to be as sleek and quiet, thermals didn’t matter
I get the M-series argument for "efficiency" from apple's perspective, but I can simply not understand how Users actually follow it. At the prices M-series have brought, you can get an even slimmer notebook and even more powerful server (or off-site PC), even if you rent the server.
Well, that’s always kinda been the case with Apple computers 🤷♂️ Also, earlier M series machines are dropping off in prices slowly.
What do you mean? It's a laptop that can get 20 hours of battery life and I can actually put in my lap because it doesn't generate much heat. In terms of specifically buying a laptop, there's no real competition. If you don't need a laptop that's fine, but having the M-series machines has been a serious gamechanger for my workflow because I don't need to worry about finding power everywhere I go.
Battery life is a BIG one. My 4 years old M1 MacBook Air still gets an all-day battery life with no fans at all while barely getting warm, when my Ryzen laptop gets like 6 hours of battery (still pretty good considering it has an OLED screen) and blasts the fans when doing anything remotely heavy (like watching a 4K video). My base Mac Mini M4 is maybe a little slower than my main gaming PC for video editing, but it does it with only 40W at worst while not making any sounds, while my desktop sounds like a jet engine and takes hundreds of watts. A MacBook Pro gets the exact same performances on battery or when connected, while a normal workstation loses like a third of its performances on battery (and has a two hours battery life, against a 10 hours MacBook Pro 16). Efficiency is crazy important for energy consumption (especially considering how the prices exploded in a lot of countries) and for laptops, there's just no SoC with the same power-per-watt available for the regular market.
what in the world OS is running on that Macbook Pro?
El Capitan
2:02 The "AIM" alliance.
Competition is making PCs more and more efficient using x64 architecture
Absolutely, moving ever forward, like they should.
I remember when my elementary school both used PPC and Intel Macs back in the day of the 2010’s (Despite the fact the Intel Ones were more powerful).
I never used them due to them only being used by staff and a few gifted students and only remembered using the Dell Dimension XP Machines
@@BrainDamageIV Hey, that’s very cool. Doesn’t surprise me, I mean in they were probably 5-10 years old at that point, I’m using a 5 year old computer still.
It’s funny that the Apple computers were “reserved” for the gifted students, while the rest of the plebeians got Dells 😂
Yea it was quite weird, But I would later find out they would stop using macs in favor of Windows 10 (Which was ahead of its time for us elementary students)
After decades of whining about "Windoze," CISC, and multiple-button mice, etc., Apple turned the pathetic Mac into a PC. Surprised no one. The PC was always superior, and always will be. No need for a video to explain this.
UT2004 you can do TAB and then "stat fps"
@@lopwidth7343 oh yeah? Didn’t know that, thanks! I’ll try that next time!
Similar commands exist for COD2 and Doom3. Together with a couple of other factual errors, this video must be called badly researched.
I don't think this was Apple's hardest decision. In fact, the move to Intel should have happened sooner than it did. For many years after the acquisition of NeXT and the creation of Mac OS X from the NeXTSTEP OS, there were rumors that Apple had a secret Intel build of OS X. I always thought these rumors were odd because NeXTSTEP had been ported to Intel in the early 90s. Apple wouldn't have tossed out the Intel build of the OS. They had also given an early developer build of what later became Mac OS X to developers. It ran on Intel. I too still have a 2019 core i9 MacBook Pro. It is no longer my daily computer since I now have an M2 Max 14-inch MacBook Pro. I can still use the Intel MacBook Pro for most things. It's in pristine condition too.
Back when Intel was top dog in CPU manufactoring and no one could possibly compete with the almighty Intel in terms of performance and CPU manufactoring .... man have times changed in a simple decade later Apple's decision.
Apple - has transitioned their software to completely different ISAs three separate times
Microsoft - Windows still hasn't fully transitioned to 64-bit
I'm being a little bit harsh but it's mind-boggling how unportable Windows has turned out to be. NT was originally supposed to their elite workstation OS that could run on fancy SPARC and PowerPC systems, but in 2024 they're still struggling to get it working fully on anything that isn't x86. Hell it still has large discrepancies in performance between Intel and AMD CPUs.
Don't forget that they already switched from Motorola to PowerPC before and knew, how to do this kind of transitions.
"A cheap piece of shit non-Apple monitor" Nothing like those unexpected descriptors that let you know you're accessing genuine, unpretentious, non-AI generated audio. My compliments 😂.
documentary level production 🤟
@@pureblackbishop thanks Black 🤟
@@pureblackbishop Agreed, one hundred percent!
@thethriftyfawn 💪
‼️ 10:40 please clarify. Both Core Duo and Core 2 Duo are dual core. Secondly, the first series was Core then Core 2 followed. Finally, EVERY Intel Mac ever made had no fewer than 2 cores EXCEPT the 1.5ghz Core Solo Mac mini. That is the ONLY single core Intel Mac ever.
Yep, I got Coro Solo/Core Duo mixed up
Oh the dark times of Intel Macs. It wasn’t hard for Apple though as they had already got working versions of intel Nextstep. And essentially they just had to switch out the lower level code and stick the high level XNU stuff on top. No big deal.
Great video!
Thanks so much man 🤟❤️
What a lot of people don't realize is that Apple really didn't have a choice doing this... The Power PC chips were being bought up by the gaming console makers. Sony and Microsoft. So apple needed to fins another chip source. Luckily/smartly Steve Jobs was developing two versions of OSX (power pc and intel) at the time.
This was SOOOOOOOOO GOOD!!! 😍😍😍 I'm definitely gonna have to re-watch this again later on and/or in the morning to really process all of this, and to be more immersed without paying attention to the chat window!
I'd love to know what inspired you to give music a try with this one? Perhaps just for the sake of giving it a try? Even though your videos don't typically NEED music, this was VERY NICE and I'm glad you decided to give it a try! You also did a great job getting adjusted to balancing the audio levels of the background music combined with the voiceovers... it can be a fine line sometimes to avoid having voice sounding like it's "yelling" or "fighting" over the music, or the music sounding too quiet or non-existent to even be there in the first place... this was basically BANG ON! For any fine adjustments moving forward, I would say to keep paying attention to the background music like you did here, and maaaybe drop it a dB or two so it doesn't try to overpower your softer spoken voice, but that's just for the sake of very fine adjustments- all in all, this is GREAT and you did an EXCELLENT JOB with the audio editing!
Oh, and of course the audio pauses with the transitions and use of more than one audio track for the whole production... those are all signs of an EXPERIENCED audio editor, right there! 😊
So many shots, moving shots, smooth transitions, incredible lighting effects... it's like you went to editing bootcamp or something LOL! I especially loved the GOLDEN HOUR look!
And as always, the excellent storytelling and overviews of information done in a manner that's appealing to BOTH viewers who are very familiar with the subject, and to viewers who are hear learning about it and/or haven't experienced some of these machines before (like me for the desktop ones, but they were COOL!)
The internet will be making a pit stop HERE during the holidays, and for the eternity of youtube, I can tell you that RIGHT NOW!!!
Once again, HUGE CONGRATULATIONS on 11K!!! You are literally UNSTOPPABLE! ✨️😎🤟✨️
Thrifty 🩷🎉
@@thethriftyfawn Hey, I’m so glad you liked it ❤️ I was very anxious about it, since it was my first time including the background music. I don’t know, it kinda felt natural, since there was nothing to fix on these units, it was all just kinda showcasing the performance, so it felt kinda… fitting? I don’t know, it reminded me of some other retrospectives/documentaries I watched, with the jazzy/bluesy soundtrack, and I just decided to give it a go. I don’t think I’ll necessarily do it for every video, but I do think I’ll start including it more 😊
I really appreciate your comments and thoughts, helps me out a lot and is a huge motivation 🤟 Hopefully other people like it too. We’ll see how it performs 🙏❤️
@schvabek Hope you're feeling less anxious now! Remember- you have included music previously with your guitar playing, and AGAIN recently- you've already posted videos that included background music combined with a voiceover during the Christmas Special- so this was an EXCELLENT time to give it a try on a longer full length video!
The music definitely added an extra element of interest, and certainly stylized this one- similarly to more of a documentary style of video.
I agree, you definitely don't need to use music for every video, but ANY TIME it feels right, natural, suitable, or you just WANT to- GO FOR IT! You did great!
We'll see how this video goes, but I'm certain anyone who chooses to watch it will be very happy and will experience enjoyment from watching it!
No problem regarding the comments- even though some of my comments are kinda long sometimes lol... glad they're helpful! 😊
i wonder if you had changed the thermal paste on these machines, what kind of a difference would it have made to the temps? maybe you did it and didn't mention OR you did mention and i just didn't notice which is also highly likely haha
great video tho!
@@sir_whocampsalot2876 Hey, thanks! Thermal paste has been changed when I first got these systems. These temps (especially on the G5 model) are actually quite “normal”, they are really quite inefficient
@@schvabek ah alright thats good to know, cheers!
I remember coming from the Mac mini G4.
Definitely a jump.
My parents got me the first gen Mac mini with intel core duo (not the core 2).
That was a jump in performance. Graphics in my old G4 was better in my opinion comparing it to the GMA graphics the core duo had.
Been there for the switch, early Intel era was crazy
Actually that craze makes me buy early Mac Intel machines to this day
I hate the last intel MacBook Pro worst purchase in my life expensive space heater indeed but with M1 Max Mac Studio couldn’t be happier absolutely perfect
Loved watching you compare the G5 and intel polycarbonate macs!
I recently revived a core 2 duo machine myself that I forgot I owned, installed an SSD and 3GB of ram and it currently has Windows Vista of all things on it.
If you fancy I’m happy to 3D print a few of the SSD brackets for the iMacs and send them over to you, shouldn’t be too expensive for me to send them from the UK to you :)
Hey, man, so glad you enjoyed it! I also sometimes forget what machines I own lol.
That’s so generous of you! Tell you what, after I move, I’ll set up an address for people to send me stuff, and if you’d like to print a couple of those brackets and send them in, I’ll be delighted to have them.
Happy holidays! 🤟❤️
@@schvabeksounds like a plan, if you want to see what they look like they’re in my latest video/ in the description of it has the thingiverse link.
Have a great rest of the year and a happy new year!
@@schvabek Like a P.O. where we could send you stuff? That's a GREAT idea!
Not the first time Apple screwed consumers.... I left Macintosh when they moved from Motorola 68K to PowerPC. Everyone was like W T F
It would have been better to for example in Doom 3 run the built in benchmark. You open the console and put in " timedemo demo1" (no quotes) and press enter. Could have pressed enter on both systems at the same time and seen which one finished first and had the best FPS
I'll TRY to get here for the premiere today, but if I miss it I will watch the video as soon as possible after!
If there's an upload on Monday, I will likely miss the premiere due to an appointment, and will likely be [very] late seeing the video as well- just a heads up! 🙂
@@thethriftyfawn Hey Thrifty, no biggie, I have absolutely no doubt you’ll watch it several times, and hopefully enjoy it ❤️🤟
@@schvabek LMAO!!! Too funny how you KNOW I always re-watch several times 😄
Apple needs to stop focusing on smaller thinner, and expecting it to work. Sooner or later this will happen too with their own. They can get destroyingly hot too. Sooner or later, they'll hit a wall with that to. The G5 PowerPC back in 2003/04 which kinda similar to Arm arch, couldn't even get that in a mobile Mac. Besides I prefer desktops and build my own PCs, way cheaper and easier to work with anyways. But don't use windows, Linux is great. And before you say what about warranty, you, you're your own warranty especially if you know how. It's not hard to do whatsoever. Just don't be careless unlike a lot of times I see with so banged up laptops and they think it'll still work, yea don't make me laugh on that one. It'll fail way faster if it still does at 1st work after whatever damage done to it and will be expensive if one insists on true repair of it, also true with any mobile whatever including iPhone and ipad.
Apple on Motorola : IBM sucks
Apple on IBM : Intel sucks
Apple on Intel : ARM sucks
Apple on ARM.....
this company cannot be trusted.
Any new giveaway in future for such a high end machines
The music made it too hard 😊
Ab giveaway kb lavoge 😊
The move wasn’t a surprise at all, it had been rumoured for a long time and NextStep was originally designed to be portable across architectures.
It was a time when chip makers believed Moore’s law meant doubling the clock speed of their chips every two years. And Intel just released Core and were absolutely dominating AMD.
I remember them releasing the G4 + G5 and having a massive performance advantage over x86 chips, and that advantage quickly eroding as Motorola and then IBM both failed at the fabrication table to produce these chips.
I feel like this was the time Apple stopped making regular hardware upgrades to Macs, because newer chips weren’t available.
Definitely not a surprise transition, but a surprise how smooth it went, and also the x86 to Apple Silicon. And advantage I put down to Apple’s narrow hardware selection and ruthless upgrade strategy.
PowerPC was in some way better than Intel which make it very hard decision now Intel CPU is a sucky piece of crap moving to ARM processor was very easy decision.
They always could of went with AMD. Nobody would buy it.
I disagree. Twenty years ago, I bought my first Apple computer, a PowerBook G4 12-inch PPC architecture, so I know more of the story. (Starting my Ph.D. degree)
The company that made the original G4 and G5 Motorola/IBM (PowerPC) decided they would not develop new chips, so the MAC will stop the performance of new chips, contrary to Pentium and AMD that increase the power of their chips to make better IBM-compatible computers.
Microsoft was a partner of Mac computers because Word/Excel/PowerPoint have their exclusive editions for Macs, and they work better than the Windows versions.
My first PowerBook G4 had a 35W charger, contrary to Intel Pentiums, which had a 65W charger (less powerful Celeron had only 45W chargers). Thus, there was no competition for "energy performance"; it was only a problem of raw computer power.
But in 2007, the Mac, as expected, presented the iPhone... most companies thought that the product would be only a new try to make the PDA like the previous Apple Newton... but the iPhone changed mobile phones forever. They designed a new concept of "smartphones" with the help of Samsung. Samsung produced the parts (for the iPhone), copied them, and improved them to make their exceptional smartphones. The iPhone had a market like any other Mac product, and their first move was to go to Intel and ask to develop new chips for the iPhones and iPads. Intel said that they were not interested in ARM chips.
So, with the extra cash, they bought P.A. Semi to develop those ARM chips for the new mobile devices (iPod, iPhone, and iPad)... ARM chips are power efficient but not as powerful as x86 processors... until the iPhone 11 Pro, which was more able to process a 4K video than the MacBook Pro with Intel processors. In 2020, the M1 was presented... and Apple led the way for more power efficiency and high-performance chips for the first time.
@@loodwich Not sure what you don’t agree with, but thanks for the input man 🤟
@@schvabek It is only an exaggeration for the misleading term "Power efficiency."
20 years ago, I struggled to use Windows or Linux on my laptop for the laboratory. A friend bought a Power Mac G5 and was using it when I found the Linux basis for the MAC OSX. A PowerBook G4 12-inch was lighter and had better screen resolution than my Windows/Linux laptop... Later, working with the laptop, I found that the battery allowed me to use it for 8 hours, while a Windows computer had a battery for 2-3 hours.
In 2005, the importance was only the CPU computer power. When Apple showed the M1, was Intel and AMD the people who said "Power efficiency" because their x86 chips were more powerful (10%), but used 5-6 times the electric power.
Intel sucks,
Except when you do something related to drivers M series get short
RISC->CISC->RISC
Modern chips incorporate features from both designs
No!
You forgot Motorola 68k, also CISC.
Released Macs these years:
68k 1984-1993 (1994?)
PPC 1994-2005
X86 2006-2020
ARM 2020-?
@@cjeelde yeah, this was their second architecture transition
@@schvabek yeah they are used to this now :) and so are we customers :)
@@schvabekNot second, third 😉