The Photoshop demonstration was so cutting-edge at that point in history real game-changer. This channel is like a time capsule or maybe even a time machine to go back and see how revolutionary things we take for granted today were
I think that current media is trying too hard to get you to click, then trying too hard to shock and scam you into watching for longer. This is simply full of interesting content, if you're interested in the topic.
@@RiDankulous I am not that deep into processor engineering but I have read/heard several times that Intel brute forced their way out of CISC crisis. The severe incompetence of software companies, development tools and IBM/Motorola didn't help. Apple was involved in PPC but they only cared about their products and margins. That is natural. Think about ARM development until Apple and Google came along. You are being forced to use Codewarrior and Nokia's dialect.
@@Olgasys The whole CISC and RISC argument was kind of made irrelevant by the Pentium Pro which was a RISC like chip that did an CISC emulation (which is how all Intel chips have since worked). And I think you'll see with Lunar Lake that it's possible to do CISC with power efficiency as well.
Aah, such a great program this was! Great hosts as well! And interesting content, from the 80s and 90's when computers were interesting and more exciting in a way. Nowadays PCs are so much better of course, but not nearly as fascinating and revolutionary.
Back in 1995, I was working in a graphics shop. We had Mac Quadra's running Photoshop, After Effects, and a 3D animation package called Electric Image. Talk about eating up CPU cycles!
15:58 that screeching printer sound. Mmm I remember being in my elementary school computer lab, everybody printing their projects out, and the teacher trying to speak over all the noise. Dem good ol' days.
I still have that computer in my garage... My father bought that when I was 3................. I think i should go there and bring it out and plug it. I hope it doesn't explode.
Yeah, all guests were instructed on what to expect & what to do. They only had a few minutes each to do their shtick, as this was only a half hour show, with some prior post-editing. We all have the Internet/TH-cam now, so reviews online can take up as long as anyone wants.
I remember those machines in high school in the computer labs and some instances where girls pressed the power button, thinking they were ejecting their disk. To their dismay, the machine just shut down, without any dialog box asking if you really wanted to shut down, and apps didn’t have the ability to intercept and give a dialog box to offer to save your work. It was just a hard shutdown - BAM. Not an example of good human interface design.
@@user181 You would have to hit 'Return' after the power button for it to shut down as you had a warning box pop up. The power button was there because pretty much all PC's of the era only had a hard on off switch located at the back of the computer. Today, the few PowerPC era boxes I have here, the plastic is all brittle and broken and some of the power buttons located on the Macs have long since deteriorated, but thanks to the power button on the keyboard, means I can still switch them on easily enough, so it's not all bad.
I remember seeing that Windows 95 emulator for the iMac G3 selling for like $60. At that time you'd get better performance just finding an old Socket 7 system for Windows needs. Pre G4 PPC just couldn't emulate x86 to save it's life
I used software emulation in the 1980s with the Amiga to emulate DOS and it was ok. On an iMac G3 you can run Windows 95 ok for business type software. Not fast but not unusable.
Yep. It started out pretty slow, but with the advancement of the hardware and the software, it got to be pretty good. I think the last version to come out came with Windows 98. By then, Connectix Virtual PC was the better way to go and was supported on the Mac even after Microsoft acquired it, and it got native Mac OS X releases while SoftWindows was long abandoned by then. Virtual PC was more oriented toward hardware emulation and would run a variety of x86 operating systems, whereas SoftWindows relied more on hacks and did not support installation of a custom OS, although it was possible to upgrade Windows on it. I upgraded from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 in SoftWindows 3.0 back in the day, and I did that on a Performa 6214CD with a rather feeble 603 CPU at 75 MHz and a gimped bus (it was a low-end machine even for its time). Now THAT was SLOOOOOWWW!!!! Windows 3.11 was just barely usable, but Windows 95 on that hardware was useless.
OS/2 was already pretty much dead in the water by 1994. Windows NT had taken off in the business world, Win95 was just around the corner, even IBM was planning to replace OS/2 with something known as "Workplace OS." Even Windows NT only supported PowerPC for one release (3.5, IIRC) and then was later dropped. PowerPC just never really found a place outside of Apple.
@@drygnfyre I think PowerPC only lasted with Apple for so long because Apple didn't have the money to move on after it proved to be a dead end, until the mid 00's when they moved to Intel.
@@RoastBeefSandwich PowerPC was competitive throughout the 90s, though, and the G3 left Pentiums in its dust. It was apparent even in the early and mid 2000s that Apple believed that the PowerPC could continue to be competitive. The G5 was meant to be the future of the platform, but then it did not work out as planned and hoped, and that was when the Intel switch became a necessity. The Core series was doing to the G5 what the G3 had been doing to the old Pentium line.
@@ericwood3709it was interesting that G4 based Apples that had the processor on a daughter card could be updated to a G5, or even a dual processor G5..…
Flash forward into the 21st century and the PowerPC architecture is used for the main processor for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U
@@ZiggyMercury It's all been about performance per watt. x86 and PPC are too hot to shrink down and keep the speed up. ARM outclassed them for that use case, and it's an important one considering everyone uses phones and laptops.
Had a PowerMac 6100/66 with an Crescendo G3 CPU Upgrade Card, an A/V Card, the max of 72MB RAM, integrated MOD, SCSI CD ROM and an SCSI HD (do no remember the Size). Browsed the web in those days and did all other stuff with it.
When the Apple PowerMac and Compaq Pentium machines were competing against each other, it wasn't a completely fair test. They should have been using Windows NT on the Pentium, and native 32-bit programs. They are essentially running 16-bit code on the Pentium, whereas the PowerPC is running native code. While the PowerPC may still win, it wasn't fair.
Michael MacEachern if Microsoft had integrated NT into their consumer level Windows operating systems in those days they would have gone head to head here.
They were comparing like with like, which sounds completely fair to me. Note that Intel’s Pentium 60 and 66 processors were pretty crap. The 90MHz chips they brought out the following year were the real killers that fought back against PowerPC.
Yes, those chaps were from Apple, so obviously they are going to favour applications and their implementation where their machine will outshine the rival. Hardly a fair test. It should have been an independent test using an all round benchmark tool to be fair. The result then may have been much different, as RISC is not always better than CISC.
Yeah, maybe if you want to be waxing on semantics. But let's be real. A business would have made their platform choice anf stuck with it. A normal person buying a computer at this time had to see it as an investment, and none of them were going to pay extra for windows nt. And if this is something they were going to use a lot, the power mac made sense.
@crackwitz ...and then came Alpha and ran circles around both. blindfolded, backwards, on one leg, uphill...and it was still faster. but hey, same old, same old. keep clutching that wallet...there's always something nicer just around the corner.
Those 66 Mhz Pentium are extremely difficult to find making them as a collectible item because of the FDIV bug which Intel quickly fixed by introducing new models of 75, 90 and 100 Mhz probably way before this episode aired, these Apple guys were comparing obsolete technology with their brand new ostentatiously-named PowerPC which ended up not being as powerful as they claimed it to be, Apple themselves ditched it for Intel after all. It's so evident that this episode was yet another's Apple propaganda, pre-elaborated questions that are clearly not written by Cheifet, confusing terminology mixed up with references to pop culture trying to associate art and creativity with such failure. As a kid I always heard that Apple is the best in everything and Microsoft is the evil that rips off from its competitors, but history proved that being quite a fallacy, even Steve Jobs popularized the expression _good artist copy, great artist steal_ and that's real evil.
@no name Yep, same here. We had a 40 meg in the Mac LC, but that was from several years prior. We upgraded to a Performa with a 1 gig drive and 8 megs of RAM around 1994 or 95.
In 2007, PowerPC was merged _back_ into IBM's POWER architecture for servers and supercomputers. POWER9 that came _this_ _year_ runs 12 cores with *48* threads at 4 GHz. Intel Xeon is behind and only AMD Threadripper comes close.
They do now, but it’s really an economies of scale thing. The x86 platform is where the sales are, so it’s where the development funds go. That same feedback loop could have been applied to just about any architecture that was even half plausible.
@@ericwood3709 Windows NT 3.1 was a choice and it was used Newtek Video Toaster Screamer which is based on Windows NT 3.1 MIPS 4400 at 150 MHz based machines in 1993. For 1993, Pentium 60/66 also has Windows NT 3.1. In 1994, X86 PC has Pentium at 100Mhz.
@@ericwood3709 Windows NT 3.1 was released in the same year as the Pentium. Windows Chicago build 58s was released in August 1993. Build 73g was released in December 1993 which near Windows 95's GUI.
@@ericwood3709 I remember Chicago and Doom within a window previews in PC magazines which cause a pause with my upgrading Amiga 3000/030 @ 25 Mhz. I installed Win32S on Windows 3.1 Enhance Mode. Win32S was the preview APIs for Windows NT 3.x/4.0 and Windows 95 Win32. WinG API was released in 1994. Win32s 1.1 was released in 1993.
Apple/Jobs maintained the PowerPC was the most powerful platform available right up until they dumped it while still selling suckers their quad-processor G5s for criminal prices.
Have to agree it was hilarious watching what a joke Apple was with its PowerPC marketing brainwashing/bashing against Intel based systems, which switched overnight with the new campaigns saying how their Intel based systems were wickedly faster than their old setup (yet were still selling the old stuff for a little while, non-discounted).
oldtwins na In computing, different platforms have always had their highs and lows. For example, before Intel released 486, Motorola 68k series CPUs were usually faster at the same clock speed. However, 486 reversed this trend. It's the same story with PowerPC. Early PowerPC CPUs were more or less equal to early Pentium CPUs at the same clock speed. The G3, however, was a real breakthrough because it had much higher IPC (performance per cycle) than anything available from Intel at the moment. It was also true for G4. Those CPUs were faster than P2/P3, they were cheaper to manufacture and they were also very energy efficient (all G3 and most G4 CPUs were passively cooled, at least in desktops). However, G4 had a very low bus throughput and it was the main factor limiting its performance, especially for later models with clock speeds higher than 800 MHz. G5 really was the PowerPC equivalent of Pentium 4: its IPC was worse than G4, but it had much higher clock speeds and a much faster bus. It was also faster than early P4s, but IBM, unlike Intel, was unable to overcome its flaws and aggressively drive clock speeds higher: the fastest G5 ran at 2.7GHz and the fastest P4 ran at 3.8 GHz which really gave it a lot of performance advantage. And when the Core series arrived, G5 was more or less dead in the water (and this is why Apple switched to Intel right before the introduction of Core Duo). So yes, PowerPC was faster than Intel for quite a while, but it lost the performance battle eventually.
Back in the 90s I didn't have steady employment. I was looking forward to IBM OS/2 32-bit. Couldn't afford a > $3000 machine. If I had the $ I would have bought an Apple PowerPC Macintosh. The case designs were so much nicer than now. Does Apple even make regular desktop PCs anymore (non-combined design)?
Steve Jobs kept these kinds of tests, it's sorta funny how he used to claim how everything at Apple was wrong yet he used everything Apple from the Newton to the cloud it was all done before he came back...
It's no secret that Jobs' genius wasn't in making useful products for business, but marketing stylish products for consumers who value form over function. To be fair, Apple couldn't market jack while he was out, so you kinda need the marketers and the tech people in equal measure.
@@jesuszamora6949 That is total BS, Steve was a product genius in design and functionality. The Mac has always been the most elegant, and intuitive system out there. Microsoft took ten years to even approximate the look and feel of a Mac, and without Steve Apple coasted, almost to oblivion. He came back and we know the story from there. Steve hated selling to corporations, because he couldn't get to the end user. I T idiots have always preferred Windows for its mediocrity and backwards compatibility.
You are full of sh#!! Steve was the guiding force in the beginning and in the resurgence. If left to Woz in the 70s, there would be no Apple, and Woz would still be at HP putting boards together. Apple would be a memory if Steve didn't return when he did. It was more than marketing; it was taste, design, and a feel for people's needs.@@jr2904
The Power PC was far superior to Pentiums, but they were somewhat hamstrung by the Mac OS having a lot of old 68 K code. If the software was well tuned, they were very fast processors.
It was a case of PowerPC being a brilliant design but was always just a little behind the rapid pace of advances others were doing at the time. PPC is still one of the best designed ISA's built and if it had the might of folks like Intel/AMD behind it, it would probably be the general use everywhere today. Alas the road not taken.
@@valenrn8657 I hate to nitpick your good comment, but it was only the Pentium 90Mhz that was first available in March/April 1994. The 100Mhz Pentium did however come out a couple of months later in the same year and yes they are both very fast compared to the original mid-1993 60Mhz Pentium.
@@valenrn8657 Additionally, I found a scan on Google Books of an old September 27 1994 issue of PC Magazine where they mention that they couldn’t find any 100Mhz Pentium systems because there was still a great shortage of them. Most of the production yields from Intel were not stable enough to run at 100Mhz reliably so 90Mhz parts were much more common even as late as October 1994. Thought it was interesting to mention. The 90Mhz Pentiums definitely were available early, however, because I happen to own a Pentium 90 PC (Gateway 2000 P5-90 tower) manufactured on April 27 1994.
@@Banzeken >_ Most of the production yields from Intel were not stable enough to run at 100Mhz reliably so 90Mhz parts were much more common even as late as October 1994._ That's a flawed argument when PPCs also have different-level SKUs. Pentium 90 Mhz used 60 Mhz FSB, hence it's one jumper away from 66 Mhz FSB for Pentium 100 Mhz overclock.
Why are they comparing a RISC vs. a CISC at the same clock speed? That's not how it works. The whole point of a RISC processor is you can get stuff done at lower clock speeds. Surely a 66 Mhz PowerPC is in a very different price bracket to a 66 Mhz Pentium?
Funny when they compared the PPC to Pentium, the version number of Delta Graph was 2.0 on PC, but 3.5 on PPC. I'd have to imagine there were many revisions and optimizations between 2.0 and 3.5. He flat out asked them if they were doing anything shady and he didn't seem to think the version difference qualified. lol. They must have paid good money for their time.
The versions didn’t always line up between platforms. It was pretty common for them to be totally independent and release schedules would not coincide. Not sure that’s the case here, just that it’s not immediately suspicious.
There most likely wasn't the same version for Windows. They were running Windows 3.1, and any kind of graphics software was behind the Mac version, if it existed at all. Photoshop wasn't available until Win '95 came along.
@@EpicureMammon Correction: The Pentium was only available originally in mid-1993 at 60Mhz, the 90Mhz Pentium was by far the most common speed throughout 1994. Intel already struggled to make 100Mhz parts so no way in hell did they make 133Mhz Pentiums in ‘94. 133Mhz was a mid-to-late 1995 part.
Wish i had a time machine how much would they pay for a ryzen to research. I think the gamecube,wii and xbox 360 are the only things i have used that were power pc based.
Steve Jobs: PowerPC is going to blow the competition away (people spend tens? of thousands on dual processor G5s). Next minute, also Steve Jobs: Intel processors are the future.
Apple gave IBM every opportunity to keep them on the PowerPC platform, but IBM were unable to shrink their manufacturing process fast enough to build mobile CPUs that could keep pace with Intel’s offerings at the time. OS X always ran on x86, (going back to NeXT’s Openstep), and after giving IBM about a year’s notice to either catch up or lose Apple, Jobs pulled the plug. Job’s insistence on controlling the silicon since then has paid off, and indeed has revolutionized the industry.
Steve Jobs had nothing to do with Apple switching to PPC in 1994, he had everything to do with switching to Intel in 2004 - that’s a long minute btw - while also acquiring the team who are now building the M1 and M2. Just as Steve envisioned, Apple now owns the whole widget.
@@dwm1156 Thanks for missing the point Daniel. Jobs was always a salesman who flat-out lied to consumers. We had customers purchasing the last generation Dual PowerPC G5 (water cooled-leak machines) on the basis of Jobs claiming PowerPC would continue to 'blow away' anything Intel. He knew Apple was organising to switch to Intel. Luckily, those clients switched to Windows and stayed there.
Hardly "next minute," apple was committed to power PC for many many years... The short pipelines and RISC architecture of the PPC was competitive or better for many years... it was more a commercial decision than a performance decision to go the Intel way... Was the right thing to do, no one can argue with it...
So running Windows on the PowerMac 66Mhz has performance downgraded to a 486-SX at 25Mhz. That's more than 50%. It's ok, but it's not an insignificant hit.
I recall at the time I was amused by the fact that Motorola as a company switched to using PC on Intel architecture, so they weren't actually using their own product. Nice decision by their IT group.
It would have been all about the OS and the software available. It was so complex back then, but they would have had to go to Apple to use PPC at that point, as OS/2 with AIX wasn't really ready for primetime. There was no networking, for example.
What they didn't say is your old software is useless and in 5-years your new software will be useless (hamstrung emulators aside). Apple new they needed to make a platform switch due to the 68k and the decision was for lower cost of good sold ONLY--if it were RISC in the future why did they go Intel in 5-years? And back to RISC with the M2 because...cost). So they go and get a partner who is in love with RISC (NIH) with a large market share (which apple has never had), IBM, and a manufacturer who was desperate to have a product to replace the 68k, Mororola, and ultimately they (co-)own the technology. Then tell the users that the change is for YOU and it's GOOD. Classic Apple move that leads them straight into the ominous 1997 and the deal with the devil. I'll leave it to you to figure out which man was/is the devil.
Pentium running PS was so much slower because the program hasn't been optimized to make use of this hardware. Apple took its time to release a plug-in making PS run roughly around 70% faster on Pentium (4). So, what is shown in this episode, it was hardly a fair comparison.
drysori that’s probably how to print in a huge lab, sending documents to print stations/ servers. Probably had to pay per page. My university had the same thing in the early 2000’s.
@@Banzeken Except it wasn’t. PowerPC was competitive for a long time until it wasn’t. By that measure, Intel would’ve also been a complete failure due to NetBurst or Itanium. It’s called a lifecycle.
@@BlownMacTruck The problem with that comparison is that Netburst was just one of several non-enterprise x86 microarchitectures Intel made and it lasted a lot shorter than PowerPC but still lasted long enough to outsell the (expensive) G5 PowerPC which died shortly after Intel revised their still-on-market P6 architecture (debuted with the Pentium Pro in late ‘95, remember?) and made Core 2 Extreme/Duo/Quad. PowerPC was IBMs only “mainstream” home consumer processor and died a slow death. Intel had more than one option to lean back on if another one failed and Netburst is the oddball exception people like to harp on because it wasn’t competitive with the newer K8 architecture from AMD (which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone). Considering that PowerPC was a series of RISC-based architectures that never had nearly the same market-share as equivalent x86 ISAs and only lasted 12-ish years before being discontinued on the personal computer market, they are certainly long-term failures.
@@Banzeken You’re just drawing arbitrary lines. Apple always had a next step if PowerPC didn’t continue. That was x86. And they had a next step for that too when it failed to keep up: ARM. Just because they’re different architectures doesn’t mean anything in the business or consumer sense. All the transitions were practically invisible to end users. Oh and NetBurst was definitely enterprise focused. Not sure why you think it wasn’t, as enterprise servers consist of far more of Intel’s pricing model than the relatively small consumer side. Let’s not even get into how you called PPC RISC (and not any of Intel’s offerings) or how you think more than a decade of consumer grade product is “a failure”. 🙄
PowerPC lost out to Intel in a huge way. This Chronicles would have you believe PowerPC was going to be the next big thing, but Intel's Pentium was king in the 90s. It's so fun to look at how "layers" in Photoshop was considered a new and groundbreaking thing back then, and how applying filters in 10 seconds was considered fast. Nowadays our cell phones could apply a more complex filter to animations or stills in real time compared to what this "powerPC" could do back in 1994. Amazing how far we've come.
Watching this I was reminded of the time an Apple fan friend had told me PowerPC was, "the future" and my Intel-based PC's were a dead end. Today Intel/AMD are everywhere, and it was PowerPC that was the dead end, and has been relegated to a very small niche market...
@@АлексейГриднев-и7р No, they won't, because like everything else CrApple™ has done they will over price whatever ARM based computers they release, while at the same time the manufacturing quality will continue to go right through the floor.
funny they compare a 66 MHz Pentium to a 33 MHz 486 but then they compare a 66 Pentium to a power mac waa waa waaaaaaaaaaaaa 10 bucks says she picked a Pentium that performs 8 times slower over a 2 time machine to make the mac better
oh the mac as a RISC machine is better comprehensively than the equivalent clock speed pentiums. I recall using an Acorn A5000 desktop with a 33mhz RISC chip that comparatively thrashed a pentium pro 150mhz playing video (low res still) in the mid nineties- really was that good, we only had the two to go by and had we tested video on a 33mhz pc it wouldnt have even played it without hardware acceleration. RISC is why AVID initially chose mac's to run their software/hardware on.
@@respectforkurt944 What about running Doom when 3DO has 33Mhz ARM CPU? Pentium Pro has performance issues with a 16bit code path which is fixed in Pentium II.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
The Photoshop demonstration was so cutting-edge at that point in history real game-changer. This channel is like a time capsule or maybe even a time machine to go back and see how revolutionary things we take for granted today were
Excel never ceases to blow my mind. One of my favourite applications ever made.
Literally just loops and cross referencing arrays with a presentation layer on top… it is interesting though I’ll give you that.
@@BlueDippy welp some dude used excel to simulate a circuit and by effect made a cpu
absolutely. its so useful
It's interesting to hear them discuss layers in Photoshop as a new feature since today it has become a central way of using Photoshop.
Alexandria Thorne Absolutely! I can't imagine using Photoshop without them!!
MoXoM It is possible to use Photoshop without layers but it will be much much harder and time consuming :)
If I remember well, I believe I had layers on Amiga paint program of some sort in those days. Was it Photogenics?
@Blue Skin Alien Yeah. It is a pity they allowed everyone else to catch up (Commodore).
I love the way the levels dialogue box at 10:35 has remained essentially unchanged for over a quarter of a century.
This is oddly calming to watch.
I agree!
Same. This show was an important part of my childhood.
Indeed. I'm actually using this channel as therapy.
It’s comforting as it takes me back to a simpler time. The Power Mac 7200 was my first computer and System 7 was my first OS.
I think that current media is trying too hard to get you to click, then trying too hard to shock and scam you into watching for longer.
This is simply full of interesting content, if you're interested in the topic.
Oh man cubic rotation of a video, it's everywhere today !
Using processor with RISC architecture instead of CISC (x86) was the point that brought fame of Machine performance to an apple computer until today.
Apple went CISC but switched back to ARM/RISC.
@@RiDankulous I am not that deep into processor engineering but I have read/heard several times that Intel brute forced their way out of CISC crisis. The severe incompetence of software companies, development tools and IBM/Motorola didn't help. Apple was involved in PPC but they only cared about their products and margins. That is natural.
Think about ARM development until Apple and Google came along. You are being forced to use Codewarrior and Nokia's dialect.
@@RiDankulous me too! IBM c10, J40, 58H , p340, F40, F50, P5 and P7! Those p series until 2022!
@@Olgasys The whole CISC and RISC argument was kind of made irrelevant by the Pentium Pro which was a RISC like chip that did an CISC emulation (which is how all Intel chips have since worked). And I think you'll see with Lunar Lake that it's possible to do CISC with power efficiency as well.
Aah, such a great program this was! Great hosts as well! And interesting content, from the 80s and 90's when computers were interesting and more exciting in a way. Nowadays PCs are so much better of course, but not nearly as fascinating and revolutionary.
no way its great for a historical standpoint but this was the dark ages of computing lol
You are right, tech today becomes boring.
@@clark85 no, programmers back then couldn't be lazy because they didn't have tons of memory or CPU cycles lol
Back in 1995, I was working in a graphics shop. We had Mac Quadra's running Photoshop, After Effects, and a 3D animation package called Electric Image. Talk about eating up CPU cycles!
Ha so did I. Electric image and Form Z
Same here. EIAS and Form-Z....together with plugin packs that costed as much as a (midsize) car.
nothing in the budget to add nubus photo processing cards?
15:58 that screeching printer sound. Mmm I remember being in my elementary school computer lab, everybody printing their projects out, and the teacher trying to speak over all the noise. Dem good ol' days.
it call a dot matrox printer bruh 🤨
A dot matrix printer as late as 1994....
I like how you can literally see how everything on the display draws and refreshes top to bottom.
that the refresh rate on the crt bruh it don’t work good with 30fps ntsc
I still have that computer in my garage... My father bought that when I was 3................. I think i should go there and bring it out and plug it. I hope it doesn't explode.
My favorite episode. After watching this, I got a PowerMac 7500. Later upgraded it with a 604e daughtercard.
what’s that like a 486??
3:35 Wow, some big and beautiful IBM PS/2 era monitors!
4:22 That GUI is called “CDE”. I remember using it on DEC Alphas.
I've experienced it on Solaris 10. It's as UNIXy as a desktop environment can be!
Looks like early version of KDE to me
@@tilsgee Think of KDE as a later version of CDE.
9:55 - he just leaves her and she stands there facing the wall doing nothing for the rest of the scene.... lol
They do that stuff with every guest, every episode. I think if the shot changes they will walk away. It does end up being very awkward.
She’s a nonplayer character.
Yeah, all guests were instructed on what to expect & what to do. They only had a few minutes each to do their shtick, as this was only a half hour show, with some prior post-editing. We all have the Internet/TH-cam now, so reviews online can take up as long as anyone wants.
@@IldarSagdejev "I don't know you and I don't care to know you."
Ildar Sagdejev 😂
16:00 The infamous power button, located right where you might expect to find an eject button on non-Mac machines...!
I remember those machines in high school in the computer labs and some instances where girls pressed the power button, thinking they were ejecting their disk. To their dismay, the machine just shut down, without any dialog box asking if you really wanted to shut down, and apps didn’t have the ability to intercept and give a dialog box to offer to save your work. It was just a hard shutdown - BAM. Not an example of good human interface design.
@@user181 You would have to hit 'Return' after the power button for it to shut down as you had a warning box pop up. The power button was there because pretty much all PC's of the era only had a hard on off switch located at the back of the computer. Today, the few PowerPC era boxes I have here, the plastic is all brittle and broken and some of the power buttons located on the Macs have long since deteriorated, but thanks to the power button on the keyboard, means I can still switch them on easily enough, so it's not all bad.
softwindows was horribly slow, he had to 'demonstrate' with solitare since its about the only thing you could use under emulation at the time lol
I remember seeing that Windows 95 emulator for the iMac G3 selling for like $60. At that time you'd get better performance just finding an old Socket 7 system for Windows needs. Pre G4 PPC just couldn't emulate x86 to save it's life
If you had a DOS Card, the speed was just as fast as any 486 PC.
Richard Sequeira Yes, but that wasn’t emulation. It was, for all intents and purposes, an independent 486 computer inside your Mac.
I used software emulation in the 1980s with the Amiga to emulate DOS and it was ok. On an iMac G3 you can run Windows 95 ok for business type software. Not fast but not unusable.
Yep. It started out pretty slow, but with the advancement of the hardware and the software, it got to be pretty good. I think the last version to come out came with Windows 98. By then, Connectix Virtual PC was the better way to go and was supported on the Mac even after Microsoft acquired it, and it got native Mac OS X releases while SoftWindows was long abandoned by then. Virtual PC was more oriented toward hardware emulation and would run a variety of x86 operating systems, whereas SoftWindows relied more on hacks and did not support installation of a custom OS, although it was possible to upgrade Windows on it. I upgraded from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95 in SoftWindows 3.0 back in the day, and I did that on a Performa 6214CD with a rather feeble 603 CPU at 75 MHz and a gimped bus (it was a low-end machine even for its time). Now THAT was SLOOOOOWWW!!!! Windows 3.11 was just barely usable, but Windows 95 on that hardware was useless.
As a designer I appreciate this, it's history ❤️
why nobody use it no more bruh
19:00 I actually used to do tech support for FrameMaker way back in the day :).
I like the sample report the guy at the end uses "A Report on the Playing of Cards" lol
I love how there was a life before the Internet. You could work and play with computers without an Internet connection.
You can still do that. I do.
that's great! being able to resize the fish. just like that!
The benefits of the RISC technology … Strange to watch this on an M1 Mac
2:59 OS/2 for PowerPC never shipped. In fact, this is the first I heard that it ever existed.
OS/2 was already pretty much dead in the water by 1994. Windows NT had taken off in the business world, Win95 was just around the corner, even IBM was planning to replace OS/2 with something known as "Workplace OS." Even Windows NT only supported PowerPC for one release (3.5, IIRC) and then was later dropped. PowerPC just never really found a place outside of Apple.
@@drygnfyre I think PowerPC only lasted with Apple for so long because Apple didn't have the money to move on after it proved to be a dead end, until the mid 00's when they moved to Intel.
@@drygnfyre Windows NT 4 supported several architectures, PowerPC among them.
@@RoastBeefSandwich PowerPC was competitive throughout the 90s, though, and the G3 left Pentiums in its dust. It was apparent even in the early and mid 2000s that Apple believed that the PowerPC could continue to be competitive. The G5 was meant to be the future of the platform, but then it did not work out as planned and hoped, and that was when the Intel switch became a necessity. The Core series was doing to the G5 what the G3 had been doing to the old Pentium line.
@@ericwood3709it was interesting that G4 based Apples that had the processor on a daughter card could be updated to a G5, or even a dual processor G5..…
I see great things for the PowerPC. in the future.
Flash forward into the 21st century and the PowerPC architecture is used for the main processor for the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, GameCube, Wii, and Wii U
Also on space probes!
It was nice you could finish a beer while it was booting up or program these ssd drives require a beer bong to keep up lol.
But Apple dropped it in favor of the allegedly "anachronistic " CISC architecture of Intel (15 years before ditching Intel in favor of ARM).
@@ZiggyMercury
It's all been about performance per watt.
x86 and PPC are too hot to shrink down and keep the speed up.
ARM outclassed them for that use case, and it's an important one considering everyone uses phones and laptops.
no
I like watching this stuff. The progress of tech is cool to see.
u probly like the facebook too think it evolved from cb radio 🙄
@@jessihawkins9116 No
tech progressed. people unfortunately did not.
@@Dr.W.Krueger Yes
@@xaviersavedra711 your a facebooker 🤨
Now Apple is back to a RISC processor architecture - ARM (M1 family/Apple Silicon).
Exactly, and this time they have their chip design in-house, so this time they have a great chance to succeed
Had a PowerMac 6100/66 with an Crescendo G3 CPU Upgrade Card, an A/V Card, the max of 72MB RAM, integrated MOD, SCSI CD ROM and an SCSI HD (do no remember the Size). Browsed the web in those days and did all other stuff with it.
wow... back when "layers" in photoshop was a revolutionary new idea
When the Apple PowerMac and Compaq Pentium machines were competing against each other, it wasn't a completely fair test. They should have been using Windows NT on the Pentium, and native 32-bit programs. They are essentially running 16-bit code on the Pentium, whereas the PowerPC is running native code.
While the PowerPC may still win, it wasn't fair.
Michael MacEachern if Microsoft had integrated NT into their consumer level Windows operating systems in those days they would have gone head to head here.
They were comparing like with like, which sounds completely fair to me.
Note that Intel’s Pentium 60 and 66 processors were pretty crap. The 90MHz chips they brought out the following year were the real killers that fought back against PowerPC.
Yes, those chaps were from Apple, so obviously they are going to favour applications and their implementation where their machine will outshine the rival. Hardly a fair test. It should have been an independent test using an all round benchmark tool to be fair. The result then may have been much different, as RISC is not always better than CISC.
Yeah, maybe if you want to be waxing on semantics. But let's be real. A business would have made their platform choice anf stuck with it. A normal person buying a computer at this time had to see it as an investment, and none of them were going to pay extra for windows nt. And if this is something they were going to use a lot, the power mac made sense.
@@lawrencedoliveiro9104 Pentium 75 to 100Mhz was released in 1994. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Pentium_microprocessors#P5_based_Pentiums
Stuard definately asked the right question at 21:04
definitely*
They ran v2.0 on the pentium and v3.5 on the PPC...
@crackwitz
...and then came Alpha and ran circles around both. blindfolded, backwards, on one leg, uphill...and it was still faster.
but hey, same old, same old. keep clutching that wallet...there's always something nicer just around the corner.
Those 66 Mhz Pentium are extremely difficult to find making them as a collectible item because of the FDIV bug which Intel quickly fixed by introducing new models of 75, 90 and 100 Mhz probably way before this episode aired, these Apple guys were comparing obsolete technology with their brand new ostentatiously-named PowerPC which ended up not being as powerful as they claimed it to be, Apple themselves ditched it for Intel after all.
It's so evident that this episode was yet another's Apple propaganda, pre-elaborated questions that are clearly not written by Cheifet, confusing terminology mixed up with references to pop culture trying to associate art and creativity with such failure.
As a kid I always heard that Apple is the best in everything and Microsoft is the evil that rips off from its competitors, but history proved that being quite a fallacy, even Steve Jobs popularized the expression _good artist copy, great artist steal_ and that's real evil.
@@deltakid0 arguing about which giant corporation is more evil is a waste of time lol. Power PC hung on in the video game consoles for a while though
In 1994 you would be lucky to have a 40 Mb hard drive. 16 Mb was a generous amount of memory.
@no name Yep, same here. We had a 40 meg in the Mac LC, but that was from several years prior. We upgraded to a Performa with a 1 gig drive and 8 megs of RAM around 1994 or 95.
My 286 at twelve mega hertz was a max of 4 megs of ram lol.
Interesting how today what is considered generous memory is 16... GB.
@@oldtwinsna8347 I just ordered a new computer that comes with 32 Gb of Ram. The most I've ever had. Cut to head explosion.
@@aviduser1961 what u gona do with all that junk…..all that junk up in your trunk 🙂
Best hair cut layover since 1987 😅
PowerPC did find it's place, in modern game consoles. Not so much on the desktop.
In 2007, PowerPC was merged _back_ into IBM's POWER architecture for servers and supercomputers. POWER9 that came _this_ _year_ runs 12 cores with *48* threads at 4 GHz. Intel Xeon is behind and only AMD Threadripper comes close.
@@FindecanorNotGmail
So did they get the power consumption problems under control since the days of the G3 and G4 PowerPC?
Funny you say that, as both the Xbox One and PS4 use x86. The Wii U was the final PowerPC game console (Switch uses ARM).
They do now, but it’s really an economies of scale thing. The x86 platform is where the sales are, so it’s where the development funds go. That same feedback loop could have been applied to just about any architecture that was even half plausible.
The Power Mac 7100 next to the Compaq must have been a prototype - no proper label and a caddy CD-ROM drive.
@@ericwood3709 Windows NT 3.1 was a choice and it was used Newtek Video Toaster Screamer which is based on Windows NT 3.1 MIPS 4400 at 150 MHz based machines in 1993.
For 1993, Pentium 60/66 also has Windows NT 3.1. In 1994, X86 PC has Pentium at 100Mhz.
Acorns were doing that with video on the ARM which had a much lower clock speed.
great videos!
Expectations certainly were lower back in the day: I can process SEVERAL HUNDRED rows of data.
I’ve watched this so many times and I don’t understand why they are thinking of the PowerPC machines as a complete separate product
For the 1994 time period, 1993 era Pentium 66Mhz wasn't the latest when Pentium 100Mhz was released in March 7, 1994.
@@ericwood3709 PC games such as Doom has 32 bit DOS extensions e.g. DOS/4GW
@@ericwood3709 Windows NT 3.1 was released in the same year as the Pentium.
Windows Chicago build 58s was released in August 1993. Build 73g was released in December 1993 which near Windows 95's GUI.
@@ericwood3709 I remember Chicago and Doom within a window previews in PC magazines which cause a pause with my upgrading Amiga 3000/030 @ 25 Mhz.
I installed Win32S on Windows 3.1 Enhance Mode. Win32S was the preview APIs for Windows NT 3.x/4.0 and Windows 95 Win32.
WinG API was released in 1994.
Win32s 1.1 was released in 1993.
Ah Softwindows. Mind-blowing at the time and so slow it was almost completely worthless. Still was an important step though.
nostalgia :-)
Apple/Jobs maintained the PowerPC was the most powerful platform available right up until they dumped it while still selling suckers their quad-processor G5s for criminal prices.
Have to agree it was hilarious watching what a joke Apple was with its PowerPC marketing brainwashing/bashing against Intel based systems, which switched overnight with the new campaigns saying how their Intel based systems were wickedly faster than their old setup (yet were still selling the old stuff for a little while, non-discounted).
At the time, PowerPC *was* faster
@@BillRey Nope, stop the fake news. Thanks
@@oldtwinsna8347When the G5 was released in 2003, it was the worlds most powerful desktop. So yes, it was faster than Intel at that point in time.
oldtwins na In computing, different platforms have always had their highs and lows. For example, before Intel released 486, Motorola 68k series CPUs were usually faster at the same clock speed. However, 486 reversed this trend.
It's the same story with PowerPC. Early PowerPC CPUs were more or less equal to early Pentium CPUs at the same clock speed. The G3, however, was a real breakthrough because it had much higher IPC (performance per cycle) than anything available from Intel at the moment. It was also true for G4. Those CPUs were faster than P2/P3, they were cheaper to manufacture and they were also very energy efficient (all G3 and most G4 CPUs were passively cooled, at least in desktops). However, G4 had a very low bus throughput and it was the main factor limiting its performance, especially for later models with clock speeds higher than 800 MHz.
G5 really was the PowerPC equivalent of Pentium 4: its IPC was worse than G4, but it had much higher clock speeds and a much faster bus. It was also faster than early P4s, but IBM, unlike Intel, was unable to overcome its flaws and aggressively drive clock speeds higher: the fastest G5 ran at 2.7GHz and the fastest P4 ran at 3.8 GHz which really gave it a lot of performance advantage. And when the Core series arrived, G5 was more or less dead in the water (and this is why Apple switched to Intel right before the introduction of Core Duo).
So yes, PowerPC was faster than Intel for quite a while, but it lost the performance battle eventually.
It's like poetry, so that they rhyme
Plot twist Joan is a Robot and when the cameras off her she goes back to sleep LOL
It wasn't just SoftWindows that was being emulated, it was the 68K code with MixedMode. Brings this PowerMac down to the level of our ol' 68LC040 Mac.
68060 Amiga running MacOS 68K was faster.
amiga had a 68k processor. not much to emulate their 🤨
still had to have a bridgeboard to emulate dos
Peep that NeXTStation sitting next to the Quadra.
Back in the 90s I didn't have steady employment. I was looking forward to IBM OS/2 32-bit.
Couldn't afford a > $3000 machine.
If I had the $ I would have bought an Apple PowerPC Macintosh. The case designs were so much nicer than now.
Does Apple even make regular desktop PCs anymore (non-combined design)?
Steve Jobs kept these kinds of tests, it's sorta funny how he used to claim how everything at Apple was wrong yet he used everything Apple from the Newton to the cloud it was all done before he came back...
It's no secret that Jobs' genius wasn't in making useful products for business, but marketing stylish products for consumers who value form over function.
To be fair, Apple couldn't market jack while he was out, so you kinda need the marketers and the tech people in equal measure.
@@jesuszamora6949 That is total BS, Steve was a product genius in design and functionality. The Mac has always been the most elegant, and intuitive system out there. Microsoft took ten years to even approximate the look and feel of a Mac, and without Steve Apple coasted, almost to oblivion. He came back and we know the story from there.
Steve hated selling to corporations, because he couldn't get to the end user. I T idiots have always preferred Windows for its mediocrity and backwards compatibility.
@@mikekaylor1226 lol, Jobs was a marketer... Nothing else
Steve bought the first Newton, and threw it in the trash. You can watch that here if you want 1:01
You are full of sh#!! Steve was the guiding force in the beginning and in the resurgence. If left to Woz in the 70s, there would be no Apple, and Woz would still be at HP putting boards together. Apple would be a memory if Steve didn't return when he did. It was more than marketing; it was taste, design, and a feel for people's needs.@@jr2904
Loooool. OS/2 for Macintosh. Must've never caught on then... 'Cause I've never known anyone that owned one with OS/2 on it.
OS/2 never supported the Mac. It was going to support PowerPC, but not the Mac. IBM had (and still has) its own PowerPC and POWER platforms.
Layers! :D
Good old Chicago Font
Faster Photoshop than the one today.
Back when PPC was the more efficient CPU, I wonder how these people felt 10 years later.
RISC: You could not live with your own failure. Where did that bring you? Back to me.
16:29 I can assure you: It *was* a real RISC.
The Power PC was far superior to Pentiums, but they were somewhat hamstrung by the Mac OS having a lot of old 68 K code. If the software was well tuned, they were very fast processors.
Not as much as having 68k code, but keeping the smar architecture
The 64-bit architecture was fast. Windows NT based DEC Alphas of the day were faster than PowerPC.
It was a case of PowerPC being a brilliant design but was always just a little behind the rapid pace of advances others were doing at the time. PPC is still one of the best designed ISA's built and if it had the might of folks like Intel/AMD behind it, it would probably be the general use everywhere today. Alas the road not taken.
Let's have two Apple employees compare the PowerPC to the Pentium... surprise, the PPC won!
Seems legit.
Pentium 66Mhz in 1994 was already superseded by March 1994 Pentium 100Mhz release.
Lol my k6 2 at 350mhz was sweet with voodo 3
@@valenrn8657 I hate to nitpick your good comment, but it was only the Pentium 90Mhz that was first available in March/April 1994. The 100Mhz Pentium did however come out a couple of months later in the same year and yes they are both very fast compared to the original mid-1993 60Mhz Pentium.
@@valenrn8657 Additionally, I found a scan on Google Books of an old September 27 1994 issue of PC Magazine where they mention that they couldn’t find any 100Mhz Pentium systems because there was still a great shortage of them. Most of the production yields from Intel were not stable enough to run at 100Mhz reliably so 90Mhz parts were much more common even as late as October 1994. Thought it was interesting to mention. The 90Mhz Pentiums definitely were available early, however, because I happen to own a Pentium 90 PC (Gateway 2000 P5-90 tower) manufactured on April 27 1994.
@@Banzeken >_ Most of the production yields from Intel were not stable enough to run at 100Mhz reliably so 90Mhz parts were much more common even as late as October 1994._
That's a flawed argument when PPCs also have different-level SKUs.
Pentium 90 Mhz used 60 Mhz FSB, hence it's one jumper away from 66 Mhz FSB for Pentium 100 Mhz overclock.
why is this so quite?
Why are they comparing a RISC vs. a CISC at the same clock speed? That's not how it works. The whole point of a RISC processor is you can get stuff done at lower clock speeds. Surely a 66 Mhz PowerPC is in a very different price bracket to a 66 Mhz Pentium?
Funny when they compared the PPC to Pentium, the version number of Delta Graph was 2.0 on PC, but 3.5 on PPC. I'd have to imagine there were many revisions and optimizations between 2.0 and 3.5. He flat out asked them if they were doing anything shady and he didn't seem to think the version difference qualified. lol. They must have paid good money for their time.
Also, the 66mhz pentium was 2 years old at that point. A 133Mhz would have been a more fair comparison. :)
The versions didn’t always line up between platforms. It was pretty common for them to be totally independent and release schedules would not coincide. Not sure that’s the case here, just that it’s not immediately suspicious.
@@EpicureMammon That isn't true.
There most likely wasn't the same version for Windows. They were running Windows 3.1, and any kind of graphics software was behind the Mac version, if it existed at all. Photoshop wasn't available until Win '95 came along.
@@EpicureMammon Correction: The Pentium was only available originally in mid-1993 at 60Mhz, the 90Mhz Pentium was by far the most common speed throughout 1994. Intel already struggled to make 100Mhz parts so no way in hell did they make 133Mhz Pentiums in ‘94. 133Mhz was a mid-to-late 1995 part.
And this is happening again with Appel Silicon...
But this time they have their chip design in-house, so they have a pretty good chance to succeed this time
Those windows vs mac tests are biased. Windows was 16-bit compared to the macos of the time (32-bit).
Wish i had a time machine how much would they pay for a ryzen to research. I think the gamecube,wii and xbox 360 are the only things i have used that were power pc based.
the PS3 too (and wiiu)
Steve Jobs: PowerPC is going to blow the competition away (people spend tens? of thousands on dual processor G5s). Next minute, also Steve Jobs: Intel processors are the future.
Apple gave IBM every opportunity to keep them on the PowerPC platform, but IBM were unable to shrink their manufacturing process fast enough to build mobile CPUs that could keep pace with Intel’s offerings at the time. OS X always ran on x86, (going back to NeXT’s Openstep), and after giving IBM about a year’s notice to either catch up or lose Apple, Jobs pulled the plug. Job’s insistence on controlling the silicon since then has paid off, and indeed has revolutionized the industry.
PowerPC was around for about 11 years before the switch to Intel
Steve Jobs had nothing to do with Apple switching to PPC in 1994, he had everything to do with switching to Intel in 2004 - that’s a long minute btw - while also acquiring the team who are now building the M1 and M2. Just as Steve envisioned, Apple now owns the whole widget.
@@dwm1156 Thanks for missing the point Daniel. Jobs was always a salesman who flat-out lied to consumers. We had customers purchasing the last generation Dual PowerPC G5 (water cooled-leak machines) on the basis of Jobs claiming PowerPC would continue to 'blow away' anything Intel. He knew Apple was organising to switch to Intel. Luckily, those clients switched to Windows and stayed there.
Hardly "next minute," apple was committed to power PC for many many years...
The short pipelines and RISC architecture of the PPC was competitive or better for many years... it was more a commercial decision than a performance decision to go the Intel way... Was the right thing to do, no one can argue with it...
ooh thank you for who created Photoshop and Coreldraw software, you save so many people's work, lol
Fuck GIMP
"Human centric"
-Robot man -
solitaire benchmark xddddddddddddddddd
my son laughed at hearing the word Macintosh for the first time the other day!
Better yet the Dirty Mac lol we have John Lennon to thank for making Apple popular haha
So running Windows on the PowerMac 66Mhz has performance downgraded to a 486-SX at 25Mhz. That's more than 50%. It's ok, but it's not an insignificant hit.
I recall at the time I was amused by the fact that Motorola as a company switched to using PC on Intel architecture, so they weren't actually using their own product. Nice decision by their IT group.
It would have been all about the OS and the software available.
It was so complex back then, but they would have had to go to Apple to use PPC at that point, as OS/2 with AIX wasn't really ready for primetime. There was no networking, for example.
Steve Jobs hated them. 68K waa making NeXT really sluggish.
c:\> copy a: thatfloppy
Is it just me, or did Joan Morse like the looks of Stewart? th-cam.com/video/Ic0dkf1iFOY/w-d-xo.html
The original Linus Tech Tips
He did not drop any of the computers.
Being a graphics designer back then was such a sad profession. xD
Get into a time machine and bring m1 macs there to the sommerset office.
Why? Do you think they’d be shocked to see that something from the future performed better?
What they didn't say is your old software is useless and in 5-years your new software will be useless (hamstrung emulators aside). Apple new they needed to make a platform switch due to the 68k and the decision was for lower cost of good sold ONLY--if it were RISC in the future why did they go Intel in 5-years? And back to RISC with the M2 because...cost). So they go and get a partner who is in love with RISC (NIH) with a large market share (which apple has never had), IBM, and a manufacturer who was desperate to have a product to replace the 68k, Mororola, and ultimately they (co-)own the technology. Then tell the users that the change is for YOU and it's GOOD. Classic Apple move that leads them straight into the ominous 1997 and the deal with the devil. I'll leave it to you to figure out which man was/is the devil.
10:00 Photoshop amazing to see.
Pentium running PS was so much slower because the program hasn't been optimized to make use of this hardware. Apple took its time to release a plug-in making PS run roughly around 70% faster on Pentium (4). So, what is shown in this episode, it was hardly a fair comparison.
Apple monitor was awful compared to the Compaq monitor
1994 Adobe Photoshop fish in the picture yet people still believe almost everything they see in the news
Disappointing to realize this might have been the very last bit of computer news that Kurt Cobain ever saw.
the more things change, the more they stay the same 😑
LOL @ 16:36 a full page readme on how to print
drysori that’s probably how to print in a huge lab, sending documents to print stations/ servers. Probably had to pay per page. My university had the same thing in the early 2000’s.
compaq wasn’t the only maker of pentium PCs. come on man 🙄
Complaining almost 30 years too late lol
Wow that was a primitive photoshop
1:56 name is wrong, he's Guillermo Rodriguez
I'm a windows kinda guy... I won't lie
Lasted about 15 or so years and then Apple switched to Intel and it died.
You make it sound like it was some sort of failure. It clearly wasn’t.
@@BlownMacTruck While it wasn’t a short-term failure, it definitely was a long-term failure.
@@Banzeken Except it wasn’t. PowerPC was competitive for a long time until it wasn’t. By that measure, Intel would’ve also been a complete failure due to NetBurst or Itanium. It’s called a lifecycle.
@@BlownMacTruck The problem with that comparison is that Netburst was just one of several non-enterprise x86 microarchitectures Intel made and it lasted a lot shorter than PowerPC but still lasted long enough to outsell the (expensive) G5 PowerPC which died shortly after Intel revised their still-on-market P6 architecture (debuted with the Pentium Pro in late ‘95, remember?) and made Core 2 Extreme/Duo/Quad. PowerPC was IBMs only “mainstream” home consumer processor and died a slow death. Intel had more than one option to lean back on if another one failed and Netburst is the oddball exception people like to harp on because it wasn’t competitive with the newer K8 architecture from AMD (which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone). Considering that PowerPC was a series of RISC-based architectures that never had nearly the same market-share as equivalent x86 ISAs and only lasted 12-ish years before being discontinued on the personal computer market, they are certainly long-term failures.
@@Banzeken You’re just drawing arbitrary lines. Apple always had a next step if PowerPC didn’t continue. That was x86. And they had a next step for that too when it failed to keep up: ARM. Just because they’re different architectures doesn’t mean anything in the business or consumer sense. All the transitions were practically invisible to end users.
Oh and NetBurst was definitely enterprise focused. Not sure why you think it wasn’t, as enterprise servers consist of far more of Intel’s pricing model than the relatively small consumer side.
Let’s not even get into how you called PPC RISC (and not any of Intel’s offerings) or how you think more than a decade of consumer grade product is “a failure”. 🙄
66 MHz
PowerPC lost out to Intel in a huge way. This Chronicles would have you believe PowerPC was going to be the next big thing, but Intel's Pentium was king in the 90s. It's so fun to look at how "layers" in Photoshop was considered a new and groundbreaking thing back then, and how applying filters in 10 seconds was considered fast. Nowadays our cell phones could apply a more complex filter to animations or stills in real time compared to what this "powerPC" could do back in 1994. Amazing how far we've come.
4:25
Watching this I was reminded of the time an Apple fan friend had told me PowerPC was, "the future" and my Intel-based PC's were a dead end. Today Intel/AMD are everywhere, and it was PowerPC that was the dead end, and has been relegated to a very small niche market...
Well. new Apple ARM-based Macs may change that :)
@@АлексейГриднев-и7р No, they won't, because like everything else CrApple™ has done they will over price whatever ARM based computers they release, while at the same time the manufacturing quality will continue to go right through the floor.
funny they compare a 66 MHz Pentium to a 33 MHz 486 but then they compare a 66 Pentium to a power mac waa waa waaaaaaaaaaaaa
10 bucks says she picked a Pentium that performs 8 times slower over a 2 time machine to make the mac better
oh the mac as a RISC machine is better comprehensively than the equivalent clock speed pentiums. I recall using an Acorn A5000 desktop with a 33mhz RISC chip that comparatively thrashed a pentium pro 150mhz playing video (low res still) in the mid nineties- really was that good, we only had the two to go by and had we tested video on a 33mhz pc it wouldnt have even played it without hardware acceleration. RISC is why AVID initially chose mac's to run their software/hardware on.
@@respectforkurt944 What about running Doom when 3DO has 33Mhz ARM CPU?
Pentium Pro has performance issues with a 16bit code path which is fixed in Pentium II.
LoL. "Power Mac"
Powermac, yes lets gloss over that one shall we... and yes joan morse was a milf
dOnT cOpY tHaT fLoPpY
Too bad there wasnt a windows powerpc
Those LYING dogs