I’m confused by your first sentence - the last machines they made that used PPC were in 2005. To me it reads like you’re correcting me but saying exactly the same thing…?
The fact that Macs stopped using the architecture twenty years ago makes it bit of an odd connection, I would argue. As you say, the 360 used the architecture far more recently and over 84 million of those were sold. It’s not like it was some obscure device.
The main reason I used the comparison is because no PC analog outside of Apple’s space (Unless you count Linux on PowerPC?) used the architecture. x86 has a strong association with Windows, PC gaming, and “PCs” as a whole, while PowerPC’s most iconic use in the personal computing space was in consoles and in Apple’s lineup. Because of that, I chose to mention the PowerPC Mac line.
But the Switch and beyond use ARM, the architecture Macs have used for the last five years?
It just seemed an odd thing to mention given how long it’s been since Macs used PPC. I know they used to, but I’m old enough to have used 68000k Macs too so of course I remember that time.
When I think of portable ARM devices, my mind immediately snaps to cell phones and the Android ecosystem (which is what the Switch was compared to and even successfully hacked to run Android on).
Which is fair enough and totally reasonable - it was purely in the context of that comment it seemed odd. You had a device that actually uses the architecture that Macs use and one that used an architecture that they don’t but… yeah. It’s not important, it just made me chuckle.
I’m confused by your first sentence - the last machines they made that used PPC were in 2005. To me it reads like you’re correcting me but saying exactly the same thing…?
The fact that Macs stopped using the architecture twenty years ago makes it bit of an odd connection, I would argue. As you say, the 360 used the architecture far more recently and over 84 million of those were sold. It’s not like it was some obscure device.
The main reason I used the comparison is because no PC analog outside of Apple’s space (Unless you count Linux on PowerPC?) used the architecture. x86 has a strong association with Windows, PC gaming, and “PCs” as a whole, while PowerPC’s most iconic use in the personal computing space was in consoles and in Apple’s lineup. Because of that, I chose to mention the PowerPC Mac line.
But the Switch and beyond use ARM, the architecture Macs have used for the last five years? It just seemed an odd thing to mention given how long it’s been since Macs used PPC. I know they used to, but I’m old enough to have used 68000k Macs too so of course I remember that time.
When I think of portable ARM devices, my mind immediately snaps to cell phones and the Android ecosystem (which is what the Switch was compared to and even successfully hacked to run Android on).
Which is fair enough and totally reasonable - it was purely in the context of that comment it seemed odd. You had a device that actually uses the architecture that Macs use and one that used an architecture that they don’t but… yeah. It’s not important, it just made me chuckle.
…and groan about the march of time.