Did anyone else feel hoodwinked when the Intel switch was announced ?

[TheShortTimer]

Sony never built Apple’s New World PowerPC or Intel-era laptops. Many were assembled by Foxconn and Tech Com/Quanta Computer (many of Apple’s products have relied on Quanta over the decades).

Quite right. After all - this is why Foxconn has been the target of criticism for their poor workplace practices for many years.

See Table 1 on this wikipost. The closest Sony got involved with Apple’s laptops was in producing iBook G4 batteries and the rare Sony optical drive showing up in Macs, as much were supplied by Matushita (Panasonic), LG, and Benq.

This is borne out through my own first-hand experience. Below is an optical drive that I picked up as a spare for my iBook G3s and it was a surprising discovery that Sony actually supplied these because all of the others in my PPC laptops are of the Matsushita brand.

There was the PowerBook 2400c that was made in Japan - by IBM...

As I wrote not long ago, Cook’s chief contribution to the Apple brand is his “premiumizing” of it, turning its products into a luxury marque. Cook has done things an MBA, as he is, does to increase shareholder exchange-value in Apple.

Jobs was a salesman. That’s how the two differ at their core.

Absolutely.

Maybe I've had one too many...it's Saturday night and Belgian Ale is very good... but I'm writing this on a G5. Also on my desk is a 2006 Core Duo iMac. I acquired the G5 two years ago and it's become my daily driver. I've had the iMac since 2006, and have used it off and on since then. Maybe there's a benchmark out there where the Intel-iMac is faster than the G5. But having used both machines side-by-side, the G5 is without question the faster machine for almost everything. Maybe it's the fact that my G5 has 16 GB of RAM and an Radeon X1900, and the iMac is limited at 2GB RAM and has a basic laptop graphics card.

I also noticed this with my PM G5 vs my Core Duo Macs and it was bemusing. I'd definitely have felt hoodwinked had I jumped ship in 2006 for that outcome. There's bound to be the counter-argument that the PM G5 would have to be placed against the Mac Pro for fairness...

 

[mode11]

I believe Sony took the original Mac Portable, which was the size of a large briefcase, and tuned it into the first PowerBook. And did so whilst retaining all the performance and most of the features. There’s a good TDNC video on that too.

 

[B S Magnet]

I believe Sony took the original Mac Portable, which was the size of a large briefcase, and tuned it into the first PowerBook. And did so whilst retaining all the performance and most of the features. There’s a good TDNC video on that too.

Indeed. This is why I was careful about distinguishing Old World from New World above. The manufacturing of Old World Macs was more of a dog’s breakfast than what came with New World and later Macs.

 

[TheShortTimer]

I believe Sony took the original Mac Portable, which was the size of a large briefcase, and tuned it into the first PowerBook. And did so whilst retaining all the performance and most of the features. There’s a good TDNC video on that too.

From this:

To this!

Very impressive work but then I'd expect nothing less from Sony. The drastic West-to-East re-engineering of the Macintosh Portable into the PowerBook 100 reminds me of the gag from Spielberg's 1941 where a Japanese soldier struggles with a cumbersome U.S. made radio and declares to his compatriots "We've got to figure out how to make these things smaller!"

I saw a Macintosh Portable at a flea market during the mid 90s and it even came with a laptop bag IIRC. At the time I wasn't that a big Mac fan and so passed it by and the seller didn't make any effort to promote it. If I'd known more, I might've been tempted to enquire about the price for the curiosity value alone.

Interestingly, the first email was sent from space using a Macintosh Portable aboard the Space Shuttle Atlantis. So it wasn't a complete failure.

 

[Dronecatcher]

Maybe there's a benchmark out there where the Intel-iMac is faster than the G5. But having used both machines side-by-side, the G5 is without question the faster machine for almost everything.

I had the same experience with a Dual G5 vs C2D iMac - sure the iMac benchmarked higher but for work and everyday use the G5 beat it - extra RAM and better GPU won out over faster CPU.

I daily drove the iMac for a week then went back to the G5.

 

[TheShortTimer]

The story I read was one of Apple’s techs was running MacOS on an intel processor as an experiment.

When Steve saw it he was impressed and I believe flew to Japan to talk to Sony about building intel laptops.

This, is the actual story, written in 2014: Sony received an offer from Jobs in 2001 to use an Intel version of the Mac OS on the Vaio range. Amazing!

The backstory: Sony's 2001 offer from Steve Jobs to run Mac OS on Vaio laptops [Updated] - 9to5Mac

Update: the rumor was true, Sony confirmed that it is selling its PC business and the VAIO brand to Japan...

9to5mac.com

But the timing was bad for Sony […] Sony’s VAIO gained popularity and it is just about the time that VAIO team had finished optimizing both VAIO’s hardware and software specifically for the Windows platform.
Because of this, most of the VAIO team opposed [the idea], asking ‘if it is worth it.’

While Sony’s Vaio range was indeed hugely successful at the time, 13 years later – at a time when Sony is rumored to be planning to sell most of its personal computer division – the decision may look a little less smart.

 

[Amethyst1]

From this:

I love that backlit active-matrix LCD... and the fact the machine is running German Mac OS despite having an US keyboard. [Still looking for a German copy of the 8.6 Sawtooth release.]

To this!

Italian QZERTY keyboard, Italian Mac OS. Bellissimo.

I saw a Macintosh Portable at a flea market during the mid 90s and it even came with a laptop bag IIRC. At the time I wasn't that a big Mac fan and so passed it by and the seller didn't make any effort to promote it. If I'd known more, I might've been tempted to enquire about the price for the curiosity value alone.

I guess this is one of these "I wish I'd have picked it up when it was cheap" moments...

Sony received an offer from Jobs in 2001 to use an Intel version of the Mac OS on the Vaio range.

I wonder if a port of the Aqua GUI to Linux/X11 would have been possible/feasible/successful, kinda like how ports of CDE to Linux/X11 were a thing in the 90's. The whole thing, including Finder and possibly iTunes, iPhoto etc. I certainly would have paid for this.

 

[Sippincider]

You want hoodwinked? Try when a certain fruit company said everything you've purchased from them is "(bleep!)", and you were expected to throw everything completely out (including your data) and start all over with this insanely great new stuff. Yes transition options appeared later but certainly weren't there at first.

For myself, natively running MacOS and Windows on the same machine was a Godsend. Esp. when Office documents were (maybe still are?) about 90%, but not fully, compatible between the Mac and Windows versions. Wish Apple would've pursued AMD instead of ARM (is running iOS apps on Mac really that crucial?), but the M chips are here now.

 

[elvisimprsntr]

I bet Bill Gates feels hoodwinked. Apple sold a bunch of PPC Macs to Microsoft for the development of the original Xbox 360. Xbox switched from Intel to PPC at the same time Apple switched from PPC to Intel.

 

[za9ra22]

Honestly I feel far more screwed by Apple's recent switch to ARM, than the switch to PPC back in '06. Not because it obsoletes my Intel hardware, it was already well past its prime. But because Apple has taken away any future upgrade possibilities, and has adopted a very anti-consumer RAM and SSD pricing strategy.

When I peer over my glasses at the two vintage computers in front of me (one of them a Mac), I'm minded to note that both are in daily use today, both have modern designed and built upgrades and add-ons/add-ins and both still do what they were built to do.

As far as the Mac is concerned, it may be that Apple took away their interest and preparedness to upgrades for it, but it doesn't mean everyone else gave up on it too. Clearly they didn't. And importantly, as I have said, it still does the job it was bought for. I don't honestly see how we can reasonably expect more than this.

You want hoodwinked? Try when a certain fruit company said everything you've purchased from them is "(bleep!)", and you were expected to throw everything completely out (including your data) and start all over with this insanely great new stuff. Yes transition options appeared later but certainly weren't there at first.

I don't think Apple said anything like this. The two G4 minis I had recently bought at the point of the Intel transition were still running every day for years after Intel CPUs were being used and nobody told me they shouldn't be, or even that I had to toss anything out. I didn't, and even my data was perfectly ok. Still is, in fact.

Am I missing something?

 

[dmr727]

I saw a Macintosh Portable at a flea market during the mid 90s and it even came with a laptop bag IIRC. At the time I wasn't that a big Mac fan and so passed it by and the seller didn't make any effort to promote it. If I'd known more, I might've been tempted to enquire about the price for the curiosity value alone.

The late 90s and early 2000s were amazing times if you collected vintage Mac stuff. Pretty much anything could be had for the cost of shipping. There was a time where I had collected (not all at once, however!) just about every 68K Mac ever made - the exceptions being the 550c and the JLPGA 170. Fortunately those hoarding collecting tendencies have died away as I got older, and I limit myself to a few machines at any given time.

 

[mode11]

I bet Bill Gates feels hoodwinked. Apple sold a bunch of PPC Macs to Microsoft for the development of the original Xbox 360. Xbox switched from Intel to PPC at the same time Apple switched from PPC to Intel.

That’s not how game development works. Code will always be developed on a PC, then loaded onto a development version of the console hardware. It’s not like e.g. PS2 games were written on MIPS hardware.

That generation (X360, PS3 and Wii) was all based around PPC. Given the X360 was essentially a triple-core G5 and a Radeon GPU, it was convenient for MS to use PowerMacs in early development kits. But that would never have been the long-term plan.

Consoles by their nature are self-contained platforms, that get decided every 6 years or so. They all converged on x86 and ARM as these have the best price / performance ratio these days. Backwards compatibility is also much easier if you’re not switching ISAs every generation.

 

[Amethyst1]

Code will always be developed on a PC, then loaded onto a development version of the console hardware. It’s not like e.g. PS2 games were written on MIPS hardware.

N64 games could be developed on SGI MIPS hardware AFAICS.

 

[mode11]

This, is the actual story, written in 2014: Sony received an offer from Jobs in 2001 to use an Intel version of the Mac OS on the Vaio range. Amazing!

That seems very odd. Presumably the idea would have been for Sony to make x86 laptops under contract with Apple, branded as PowerBooks and running OS X? What if Sony had agreed? Would the x86 transition then have happened around 2002-3? With the G4 generation being Apple's final PPC desktops?

Given that killing off the clone market was Steve's first order of business on returning to Apple, it seems unlikely that Apple would have pitted its PPC laptops against the (arguably) market-leading x86 laptops, both running OS X. With such a difference in architecture, one would clearly be superior at any given point in time, making sales of the other difficult.

 

[mode11]

N64 games could be developed on SGI MIPS hardware AFAICS.

SGI were the leading manufacturer of 3D graphics workstations in the mid-90's, so it's understandable that early 3D games would be developed on them, in whole or in part. Nintendo also had a particular link with SGI, given the N64's GPU was a cut-down SGI design.

But my general point is that there's no requirement for the console and development platform to share the same architecture, and until recently, have rarely done so. So MS wouldn't have been 'burned' by Apple switching from PPC to Intel - it would have been completely irrelevant. MS always intended to use Windows PCs for X360 development; they chose PPC for the console's CPU for cost reasons (and for games, the CPU is generally less important than the GPU in any case).

 

[mode11]

I had the same experience with a Dual G5 vs C2D iMac - sure the iMac benchmarked higher but for work and everyday use the G5 beat it - extra RAM and better GPU won out over faster CPU.

I daily drove the iMac for a week then went back to the G5.

To be fair, an M1 iMac would also spank a 2019 Mac Pro for single-threaded performance, but the MP would clearly be the more powerful machine in general.

The Studio Ultra / Mac Pro is the true successor now (unless you need a lot of GPU power), as the Mac Pro would have been to the PM G5 back then.

 

[TheShortTimer]

That seems very odd. Presumably the idea would have been for Sony to make x86 laptops under contract with Apple, branded as PowerBooks and running OS X? What if Sony had agreed? Would the x86 transition then have happened around 2002-3? With the G4 generation being Apple's final PPC desktops?

Given that killing off the clone market was Steve's first order of business on returning to Apple, it seems unlikely that Apple would have pitted its PPC laptops against the (arguably) market-leading x86 laptops, both running OS X. With such a difference in architecture, one would clearly be superior at any given point in time, making sales of the other difficult.

Jobs is no longer with us so we'll never know what the roadmap would've been had Sony accepted his invitation but there's certainly substantial mileage for speculation on what would've been an alternate history for Apple - and Sony for that matter.

 

[mode11]

Jobs is no longer with us so we'll never know what the roadmap would've been had Sony accepted his invitation but there's certainly substantial mileage for speculation on what would've been an alternate history for Apple - and Sony for that matter.

Certain paths would make more sense than others though. Do you think it's conceivable we could have seen Pentium III / M Vaios running OS X, competing with PowerBook G4s? From a Mac user's point of view, we'd presumably prefer to buy the Apple machine, unless the Vaio were either clearly faster, or significantly cheaper. And if the Vaio were neither, what would be the point of them existing?

Or would Apple just concentrate on desktops, and essentially outsource laptops to Sony? Given laptops were likely on a trajectory to becoming the bulk of Mac sales (and given their AIO nature, arguably closer to the platonic ideal of a Mac), why would Apple do this? Apple is primarily a hardware manufacturer, and generally leads the market in terms of design and manufacture (reliability / repair concerns aside) - why would Apple want to outsource their laptops?

 

[Basic75]

Given the X360 was essentially a triple-core G5

I agree with your post, just want to nitpick on this detail. The three cores in the Xbox 360's chip are more related to the PPE in the Cell processor. And both are in-order with two-way SMT to hide some memory latencies. The G5 uses a different and more sophisticated out-of-order core.

 

[mode11]

I agree with your post, just want to nitpick on this detail. The three cores in the Xbox 360's chip are more related to the PPE in the Cell processor. And both are in-order with two-way SMT to hide some memory latencies. The G5 uses a different and more sophisticated out-of-order core.

Interesting. I guess 3 full G5 cores (at 3.2GHz!) would been a very beefy CPU at that point in time. Given the size of heatsink in a G5 tower, cramming such a CPU, along with a GPU and cooling solution for both, into a small console, would have been some feat.

 

[TheShortTimer]

Again, this is largely speculation but I'll try my best.

Certain paths would make more sense than others though. Do you think it's conceivable we could have seen Pentium III / M Vaios running OS X, competing with PowerBook G4s? From a Mac user's point of view, we'd presumably prefer to buy the Apple machine, unless the Vaio were either clearly faster, or significantly cheaper.

Sony could have pitched the Vaio as offering the best of both worlds - the ability to run Mac OS and also Windows alongside it - without virtualisation, which is an incentive that Apple themselves would later promote with the Bootcamp option on Intel Macs.

And if the Vaio were neither, what would be the point of them existing?

In the context of 2001 when Jobs made the proposal to Sony, their computer products often had the edge over that of Apple's. Narrowing this down to laptops, I used a Vaio Picturebook in the mid 2000s (64MB RAM, PII 400Mhz and 2MB GPU) and it outperforms my iBook G3/500s in many areas - particularly video playback, despite actually being an older machine.

Apple is primarily a hardware manufacturer, and generally leads the market in terms of design and manufacture (reliability / repair concerns aside) - why would Apple want to outsource their laptops?

We'll never know whether it would've been outsourcing or a clone/licensee arrangement. It shouldn't be forgotten that Sony's computer range was hardly a slouch, hence of course Jobs inviting Sony to come onboard. I was dead impressed with my Vaio because the package of its design and engineering offered to closest thing to Apple's tech philosophy within the WinTel world and I encountered others who felt the same way.

 

[mode11]

Again, this is largely speculation but I'll try my best.

Not arguing here - it's all speculation. Thanks for playing along!

Sony could have pitched the Vaio as offering the best of both worlds - the ability to run Mac OS and also Windows alongside it - without virtualisation, which is an incentive that Apple themselves would later promote with the Bootcamp option on Intel Macs.

Makes sense for Sony, though what would be in it for Apple? They'd get a licensing fee I guess. Not sure how much of a selling point being able to boot into Mac OS would have been to PC buyers in the early 2000's, though. It sure wouldn't be for the games. In this scenario, would there also be Apple laptops?

In the context of 2001 when Jobs made the proposal to Sony, their computer products often had the edge over that of Apple's. Narrowing this down to laptops, I used a Vaio Picturebook in the mid 2000s (64MB RAM, PII 400Mhz and 2MB GPU) and it outperforms my iBook G3/500s in many areas - particularly video playback, despite actually being an older machine.

That just makes it sound like the Intel switch should have happened earlier.

We'll never know whether it would've been outsourcing or a clone/licensee arrangement. It shouldn't be forgotten that Sony's computer range was hardly a slouch, hence of course Jobs inviting Sony to come onboard. I was dead impressed with my Vaio because the package of its design and engineering offered to closest thing to Apple's tech philosophy within the WinTel world and I encountered others who felt the same way.

This is what makes me think it would have been a case of outsourcing to Sony, with some kind of joint branding (ViaoBook!?). It may have helped drive adoption of OS X, perhaps, but that's about it. Having created an iconic design language, Apple would be ceding that role to Sony's design studio.

Unless, perhaps, the styling would be done by Apple and the underlying engineering by Sony, using x86 parts? Even today, I've got no idea how much of the detail design of e.g. logic boards is done by Apple, and how much is done by Foxconn.

 

[Amethyst1]

Do you think it's conceivable we could have seen Pentium III / M Vaios running OS X, competing with PowerBook G4s? From a Mac user's point of view, we'd presumably prefer to buy the Apple machine, unless the Vaio were either clearly faster, or significantly cheaper. And if the Vaio were neither, what would be the point of them existing?

The point of a Vaio X505 running OS X would have been to have the world's thinnest laptop, running OS X, in 2004. Yes, it was $3,000 and had flaws but... who cares? (Disclaimer: I own one.)

 

[mode11]

The point of a Vaio X505 running OS X would have been to have the world's thinnest laptop, running OS X, in 2004. Yes, it was $3,000 and had flaws but... who cares? (Disclaimer: I own one.)

Certainly a cool design. Good thing I didn't know about those when I was in my computer collecting phase .

Would always have been good for Mac users to have had more options, of course, but what good would it have done Apple? Apple didn't really have anything equivalent to this until the Air, but the contemporary (mid-2004) PowerBooks would have been the 12-17" Aluminium models.

Would these putative Sony Mac laptops have been best offered alongside or instead of Apple's models, do you think?

 

[Amethyst1]

Would these putative Sony Mac laptops have been best offered alongside or instead of Apple's models, do you think?

Would a complementary offer have led to cannibalism?

Apple didn't really have anything equivalent to this until the Air, but the contemporary (mid-2004) PowerBooks would have been the 12-17" Aluminium models.

I’d have loved a substantially more lightweight (1…1.5kg) and thinner 10.4”…12.1” “PowerBook” without an optical drive. That dream sort of came true when I coaxed Tiger onto my Asus U1F in 2007.