Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> PPC offered tremendous promise in the early 1990s at the same time Motorola's evolution of M68k was lackluster at best

Apple entered into a trio with IBM & Motorola to develop the PowerPC in early 90's.

But at that time, there already was MIPS around.

Anyone know why this PowerPC project was started despite that? Especially if -per the article- the main goal was to move from CISC to RISC?

Even if MIPS cpus around at the time had performance/W issues (I've no idea yes or no), then improving technology for existing ISA would be easier than inventing entire new architecture, no? (+ all the software tools)

And there was also SPARC then.

So why invent new wheel, vs. improve MIPS (or SPARC) & use that? Not-invented-here syndrome? Licensing issues?




PowerPC was not really an entirely new architecture, it was a downsized implementation of the POWER architecture which IBM had already been shipping in workstations for a few years.


They AIM alliance also wanted to end the Wintel Duopoly. Adopting SPARC would help out Sun Microsystems, which I believe was the leader in workstations at the time.

MIPS was to be used as one of the 'standard' reference platforms for the Advanced Computing Environment[0] or Advanced RISC Computing (?) (the other being X86), that would run Windows NT.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Computing_Environment


Apple at the time of the x86 switch was roughly 3% of the PPC chip market.


Huh. What was yet other 97?


In part, all three 7th generation game consoles (PS3, Xbox 360, Wii).


IBM and a lot of systems that had been 68K. Though the architectures were different a lot of 68K assumptions were maintained in the PPC so porting was easier.


Printers, game consoles, supercomputers.



This is the 68K->PPC switch about a decade earlier.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: