# For those who want to keep PowerPC...



## jzdziarski (Jun 13, 2005)

Since Apple's market share is so small (at least in computing), they are forced to rely on repeat customers upgrading systems. It's a quite simple solution really if you want to keep the PowerPC: get a large enough group of people to boycott the new Intel-based Macs to drive sales down. You've got another six months before the first Inhell-based Mac might become available, that's more than enough time to get comfortable with the hardware you have now and allow the new Macintelsh's to become an utter failure. There's not really  much they can do if they can't sell intel machines, except fall back to PowerPC. I guess it all depends on whether Apple's cult members are really loyal to Apple or Apple Computer, Inc...


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 13, 2005)

I am sure OS X will support PowerPC for last 10 years.


----------



## gerbick (Jun 13, 2005)

I vote for 3 iterations of OSX before PowerPC will be dropped.  so 10.8, you might be out of luck.

I'm speculating, btw.


----------



## TommyWillB (Jun 13, 2005)

Dude!

Someone actually has to BUILD the PPC chips for us to suppor them... No chis = nothing to "support"!

Why not just start a support group for black holes and the like?

How is a boycot of Apple ever going to help them or you? Are you going to punnish Apple by buing a WinTel machine instead?


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

Seeing that most people don't care what processor's inside (I'm not talking this board or similar sites, but rather the general public), I guess all you'd get by boycotting Apple would be an Apple with a few lost sales. And that sounds like a stupid idea to me.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

Boycotting out of love will not do Apple any favours. I am not opposed to the move to Intel per se, but the implications of what could be the outcome, Apple becoming a PC assembly company, in nice boxes with the Mac brandname plus a load of other outcomes that fanatics just don't want to hear.  But jzdziarski, there is nothing WE can do, PowerPC isn't cutting it so according to Jobs we must switch, and switch we shall.  The only real consideration is money and profits. Move with the flow on this one, or get left behind, there are no other permutations of the situation I'm afraid.  :-(

As for PowerPC releases of OSX after Leopard, I think two more releases and that will be it, if my fears about Apple are true, I think we'll see a greater space between releases as they cut back on R&D. Expect PowerPC Macs to be officially laid to rest by 2010 if not well before.


----------



## Quietly (Jun 13, 2005)

I reckon PPC will be supported in all versions of OSX. OS11(XI?) will be when they drop it.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 13, 2005)

How is PPC not cutting? Unless Jobs is lying to us, the PPC benchmarks twice as fast as high end Xeons. In other words, you won't see any significant performance increase in Macs until 6+ Ghz intels are available. I think a boycott might at least facilitate a healthy cohabitation between both processors. I've been thinking long and hard about what makes me buy Apple, and I think it's really the "think different" perspective. Moving to an Intel platform makes Apple just another PC manufacturer with nothing to set them apart from the rest of the Borg. I'll run Linux on my Powerbook before I buy an Intel book.


----------



## Randman (Jun 13, 2005)

PPC are already showing its old age. No 3Ghz. No mobile G5. Besides, the Macs will still run OSX. Anyone who says they are jumping ships because of the Intel switch are fools.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> How is PPC not cutting? Unless Jobs is lying to us, the PPC benchmarks twice as fast as high end Xeons. In other words, you won't see any significant performance increase in Macs until 6+ Ghz intels are available. I think a boycott might at least facilitate a healthy cohabitation between both processors. I've been thinking long and hard about what makes me buy Apple, and I think it's really the "think different" perspective. Moving to an Intel platform makes Apple just another PC manufacturer with nothing to set them apart from the rest of the Borg. I'll run Linux on my Powerbook before I buy an Intel book.



OK, now thats a set of more coherent arguements.

Jobs words must be taken lightly, as with all companies. The switch is starting a year from now and will last until the end of 2007, it's not about where we are now, but where the chip roadmaps are going in the future. PPC is great, fantastic, as an engineer I really admire it, but IBM can't deliver what Apple wants in the future.  (If you are an Apple purist, you have to remember, IBM is "the enemy" anyway.)

The days of Wintel are over, things have moved on. Intel are not evil, hell we wouldn't even have microprocessors without them OR APPLE!. But yes, you raise a valid point about Apple becoming just another PC maker, that's my fear.  It can go one of two ways can't it?  Just putting an Intel chip into a computer design doesn't make a PC, think back how many computers in the past shared a similar CPU but were completely incompatible.  There will be at least 'just enough' differences to stop Dell owners installing OS X and 'not enough' to stop Windows being installed on a Mac.  We'll have to wait and see.  If the end result is just a PC, I may not bother, the dev kits are no indication so we'll have to wait a bit longer.  Look, there isn't much technology out there that DOESN'T have an Intel made chip somewhere.

Here, have a click on this and have a laugh.
http://www.macilife.com/audio/Macintel_Startup.m4a


----------



## MisterMe (Jun 13, 2005)

fjdouse said:
			
		

> Boycotting out of love will not do Apple any favours. I am not opposed to the move to Intel per se, but the implications of what could be the outcome, Apple becoming a PC assembly company, in nice boxes with the Mac brandname plus a load of other outcomes that fanatics just don't want to hear.  But jzdziarski, there is nothing WE can do, PowerPC isn't cutting it so according to Jobs we must switch, and switch we shall.  The only real consideration is money and profits. Move with the flow on this one, or get left behind, there are no other permutations of the situation I'm afraid.  :-(
> 
> As for PowerPC releases of OSX after Leopard, I think two more releases and that will be it, if my fears about Apple are true, I think we'll see a greater space between releases as they cut back on R&D. Expect PowerPC Macs to be officially laid to rest by 2010 if not well before.


Apple has said that PPC-based Macs will be supported for five years after the transition is complete. The transition is supposed to be complete in 2007. Five years after 2007 is 2012. This means that you can reasonably expect to get support for your PPC-based Mac for the entire life of MacOS X 10.x.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

I doubt there will be too many PPC users by then anyway.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 13, 2005)

What a nightmare!  Couldn't we just of gotten a price cut on the Power CPUs?
Arent' they blowing away all benchmarks at sub 3GHz speeds?


----------



## eguillem (Jun 13, 2005)

I think we are assuming too much...PPC support for 5 years after 2007???

Well at this rate we'll be doing a new transition in 2010 to who knows what...and we'll be lucky if we have suport for whatevere they replace 

Don't get me wrong....I love transitions...it's a way to cleanup things, start over and move on. If WINTEL would've done at least 1 or 2 transitions instead of carrying so much old stuff over the new generations all the time maybe they would be better off right now.

I believe backwards compatibility must be done at the software level...Do you really need to be able to run natively MS-DOS applications??? Or even win98 software... I think not..Win XP should've been set on a completely new ground starting at the processor....and do backwards compatibility through software. I'm sure many of you will disagree so...shoot back please 

From warm Spain...Ernest
*PB 1.5 1G 80HD
MINI 1,43 512M 80HD*


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

You mean the Power 4, Power 5 processors? You don't want your Macs to start at 10'000 USD.


----------



## Mikuro (Jun 13, 2005)

The G5s are NOT twice as fast as equivalent PCs. Third-party tests generally conclude that the G5s range from "almost as fast" to "a decent bit faster" depending on the task, but they're not THAT much faster. Maybe for one or two very specific Photoshop filters or something like that. But for general use, no way. The best you can say is that they're about the same, really.

I agree, however, that going strictly by what's public knowledge, the G5 is holding its own very, very well. Since its release 2 years ago, the G5's clock speed has gone up _more than the P4's_.

That said, Apple isn't going by "what's public knowledge"; they know better than we do where IBM and Intel are heading. Steve Jobs made it sound like the big advantages of the switch are coming 2-3 years down the line. I don't know exactly what those advantages are, though.

The best guess I've heard for the long term is that Apple wants to get onboard Intel's hardware-based DRM train. I don't know a whole lot about this, but it seems likely. If Apple's doing this for shorter-term advantages, it's probably because the G4 is stagnating, and the G5 just isn't making it to portables. From what I can tell, even the current G4s compete pretty well with Intel's mobile chips, though, so again I feel like Apple's seeing a bigger difference down the line than exists today.

In any case, it's not because today's G5 can't compete with today's P4. But I have to assume that Apple knows what they're doing. This isn't a move they'd make on a whim.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 13, 2005)

the benchmarks apple published _were_ ambitious, to say the least. at video editing,  it's a very close race, PC's are about level, apparently.  PCs apparently blow macs out of the water with 3d stuff atm.  macs are better at photoshop and illustrator, and the OS is blinding.  

At the moment, it's very close.  I think, with the intel cpu's being the same as the pc versions, it'll be a true test of how fast the os is. windows is a very bloated os, after all


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

eguillem said:
			
		

> I think we are assuming too much...PPC support for 5 years after 2007???
> 
> Well at this rate we'll be doing a new transition in 2010 to who knows what...and we'll be lucky if we have suport for whatevere they replace
> 
> ...




Hola!
Totally agree with you.  The PC is a 'legacy beast', which is why I hoped Apple's x86 hardware would have taken different route, I'm not sure they will now, especially if Windows *will* run natively.


----------



## fryke (Jun 13, 2005)

Well, the transitions we've had included a lot of legacy support, too. This next one will have legacy support in the form of Rosetta. (And sometimes I think Apple should _not_ include such a PPC emulator, because it'll give companies the opportunity to lag...)


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

But it would be grossly unfair to people who have invested heavily in software.


----------



## Oscar Castillo (Jun 13, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> You mean the Power 4, Power 5 processors? You don't want your Macs to start at 10'000 USD.


Yes, their entry Power4+ workstation is $5,575.  Remove the overinflated IBM price, hardware, accessories and scale back the cache.  I mean it has 3x the L2 cache of the G5 and 8MB of ECC L3 cache which the G5 does not have.  The huge cache is what drives the CPU prices up.  Don't know how well it scales and of course it doesn't help the lack of a 64 bit laptop.


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 13, 2005)

Personally I am ready to kiss the PPC goodbye - just like I kissed my 68040 goodbye. My mac experience, over the years, has gotten better. I started using a mac with the Mac (68000). For a little while I backsteped to an Apple IIGs (running a MOS6502), then to Performa 635CD --> PowerMac G3 B&W --> PowerBook TiG4.

The OS has gotten better, the hardware has gotten better. I do not care what is under the hood (but I used to before). With an Intel CPU, we might be able to get a good WINE clone/fork to run windows games and apps directly (well I care mostly about games ), I could  run a better VPC, no hardware emulation (kinda like VPC on windows, or vmware).

Plus this is finally a good oppotrunity for straight comparisons between macs and PC and finally put people in their places


----------



## Gnomo (Jun 13, 2005)

AdmiralAK said:
			
		

> Plus this is finally a good oppotrunity for straight comparisons between macs and PC and finally put people in their places


I agree.  With this transition, the majority of the BS reasons why windoze users bash Macs are done away with.  Especially if Apple uses the same exact hardware.

I only have two "concerns" about the transition.  The first, which I'm not all that worried about, is that lack of 64 bit processing in the Intel world.

I'm not all that concerned about this, because this is how I see the transition working (pure speculation).  Apple will release Intel based Powerbooks (and maybe iBooks) while the PowerMacs will remain on the PPC (probably for the first year or so).  After which the Intel 64 bit processors will be more widely adopted by the market and the PowerMacs will transition to those processors.

My thinking on this stems from the universal binary idea.  If Apple was basically going to just dump the PPC, then why go to all the effort to get developers to support both platforms?  Why not let the developers basically say "If you're using a PPC you'll need to use version x.  But if you have the new Intel you can get version y"?

My second "concern" is only a bit (and I mean very small insignificant bit) worrisome: how is Apple going to keep OS X associate with their hardware, and what are they going to do if they fail?

With all of the jerk offs out there that are like "I'd use OS X if Apple would release it for the PC", you know there are going to be a group of wannabe hackers (and maybe even some real h4><0rs) out there that will be trying to break whatever method Apple comes up with to lock OS X to their hardware.  So, in the snowball's chance that they finally succeed what will Apple do?

Well, my $0.02 are up ... so I'll leave it at that.


----------



## pjeski (Jun 13, 2005)

Gnomo said:
			
		

> I agree.  With this transition, the majority of the BS reasons why windoze users bash Macs are done away with.  Especially if Apple uses the same exact hardware.
> 
> (snip)



So much for "Think Different".


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 13, 2005)

Gnomo said:
			
		

> I agree.  With this transition, the majority of the BS reasons why windoze users bash Macs are done away with.  Especially if Apple uses the same exact hardware.


Well, that's something to look forward to: Apple PCs.  Nice to know everything has come to this climatic finale.



			
				Gnomo said:
			
		

> My second "concern" is only a bit (and I mean very small insignificant bit) worrisome: how is Apple going to keep OS X associate with their hardware, and what are they going to do if they fail?
> 
> With all of the jerk offs out there that are like "I'd use OS X if Apple would release it for the PC", you know there are going to be a group of wannabe hackers (and maybe even some real h4><0rs) out there that will be trying to break whatever method Apple comes up with to lock OS X to their hardware.  So, in the snowball's chance that they finally succeed what will Apple do?


I think there will be a chip of some sort on the motherboard or something which OSX will validate against.  The best that non-Apple PC owners will get it something like PearPC without the CPU emulation, which may be good enough for many who are determined to do it - a few current Mac owners may go that route, I can't see Apple doing anything, especially if it means extra OS sales.


----------



## Veljo (Jun 13, 2005)

I realise Apple probably have felt like they've been forced, but I really still don't understand why they're making the switch. After all, they spent so much energy and time putting forward how awesome the G5 chip is, and now they're getting rid of it? I don't understand...


----------



## fryke (Jun 14, 2005)

Well, that's easy to understand, though. It's mid 2003. Mac fans are awaiting the G5. You tell them it's great, you don't tell them it's not.
Two years can change many things in computing. In relationships. Now combine this. A partnership that looks great at the beginning _has_ to grow over the years. This one probably didn't. And like you said yourself: It's not as if Apple hadn't done its part marketing the G5.


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 14, 2005)

Well good. I already have one PPC Mac.


----------



## fryke (Jun 14, 2005)

I don't get it. Which post does that answer?


----------



## Pengu (Jun 14, 2005)

wow. a lot of CRaZy ideas here.. boycott apple to make them stick with 2.7Ghz G5s & ~1.7 ghz G4s for eternity... switch to Power4 CPUs at 5 times the price, 8 times the power consumption and 20 million times the heat. (the G5 is a Power4 designed for desktop use. it's already been "scaled" to meet power/heat requirements as much as possible)


----------



## pjeski (Jun 14, 2005)

Good point, Pengu! Now that IBM has done that, they are at the end of the road. Nobody but intel can make progress with CPU design now. If Apple doesn't go with intel, they will be stuck with the 2.7 GHz PPC _forever_. At least intel has never failed to meet a performance goal or product release date.


----------



## Pengu (Jun 14, 2005)

wow. that almost seemed like sarcasm.

anyways. It seems to me, that any CPU that needs a water-cooled RADIATOR from FACTORY isn't exactly efficient in terms of heat or power. (2.5Ghz G5)

and a 2Ghz CPU on a 167Mhz FSB isn't the greatest of all designs either (recent G4 from Freescale)

Im not saying Intel is the best CPU maker, or has the best Chip design. 

I will freely admit that i think PPC is a better architecture.

but at least they are making advances. and they seem to have accepted the error of their ways with the P4 pure clock speed issue. Pentium M's outperform P4s now, at much lower clock speed (and lower Power/Heat)

sure, IBM have added 700Mhz (more than P4s in the same time) to the top speed. but how frickin hot are they!? while having 11 fans sounds "cool", it proves how bad the G5's heat issue is.

Im sure IBM will make great CPUs for XBOX, PS3, Nintendo-whatever, as well as continuing to develop their own Power line for Workstations and Servers. but they aren't heading in the same direction as apple, and the effort they seem to be putting into advancing the G5 is lacking to say the least.

How about this: buy one of the very last PPC PowerMac/PowerBooks made and it will last you several years. by the time you want another one, Apple should have been on intel long enough to convince you it's not as bad as it seems, or there will be after-market add-ons to shoe-horn a Power6 quad-cpu module into a G5 case (35 kVA generator & industrial a/c not supplied)

at the end of the day, it's a computer. who knows. by the time they stop selling PPCs, MorphOS might be usable with Pegasus systems. (uses PPC, etc but adds some legacy "pc" type stuff - LPT, serial, PS2 etc)


----------



## riccbhard (Jun 15, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> I don't get it. Which post does that answer?



Apparently I didnt read the posts before me


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 15, 2005)

In terms of buying the last ever PPC mac, I don't think I would do that, because I can envision a lot of things that will eventually be intel only (WINE, VPC,VMware type applications) that would not run on a PPC.

I bought a 68040 (without an FPU!) when the first generation PPCs came out, and man did I feel the pain! FAT binaries did exist but some programs were PPC only. By the same token, as a "seasoned consumer" I don't think I will be buying one of the first gen intel based macs either. My Powerbook is 1.5 years old and still has at lear 2 more years of good usage life in it, plus first gen gear is bound to have some quirks that are bound to drive powerusers mad.

Now the big question is this: will RacerX give up his ThinkPad with Rhapsody on it for an intel based PowerBook ?


----------



## scruffy (Jun 15, 2005)

Annoying to me - my B&W G3 is about 6 or 7 years old now, and it's starting to be time to replace it.  And I will want a computer that I will be able to keep for another 6 or 7 years when I replace this one.

So, the dilemma - do I wait for Intel hardware, so I can be relatively sure it will remain supported that long, or do I go ahead and buy a Mac now, since it will likely be a few years before Intel desktop Macs come out...  I guess we'll see how cheap the PPC Macs get in the next little while.


----------



## fryke (Jun 16, 2005)

Well: I don't expect current Macs to be lower in prices. Why should they? But as I said in another thread, you could simply buy a Mac mini now (cheap, ain't it) and later decide what intel Mac machine you want for 6-7 years. The Mac mini won't lose much in terms of worth in my opinion and would certainly be better than your G3, currently...


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 16, 2005)

I agreed with Fryke.


----------



## RacerX (Jun 18, 2005)

AdmiralAK said:
			
		

> Now the big question is this: will RacerX give up his ThinkPad with Rhapsody on it for an intel based PowerBook ?


Only if it can run Rhapsody.   

Actually, I "gave up" the ThinkPad for my current PowerBook (which I originally was running Rhapsody on), but the PowerBook became so important for my work that I stopped taking it with me any place... which pushed the ThinkPad back into service.

As for my next purchase... I don't think I'll be putting that much weight into which processor it'll be running. Odds are I'll end up with a PowerPC system next... if for no other reason than the fact that I don't upgrade my software that often and everything I have is currently PowerPC.

But considering the demo of Rosetta, it really could be either processor type.


----------



## powermac (Jun 18, 2005)

I would have preferred that Apple stay with the PPC line. Apple has reasons, certainly I don't understand. My only concern is will a Intel Mac be as stable and reliable as a PPC? Perhaps it will, I don't understand the technology. I feel the lack of a real mobile G5+ chip may have been the biggest reason for Apple to consider Intel. 
This whole thing did not stop me from purchasing a new PB the other day. I am still committed to Apple, and after a few years of the transition, I would buy a Intel Mac.


----------



## Carlo (Jun 18, 2005)

Randman said:
			
		

> PPC are already showing its old age. No 3Ghz. No mobile G5. Besides, the Macs will still run OSX. Anyone who says they are jumping ships because of the Intel switch are fools.




Bingo!

This move will mean

1. More mobile macs
2. Faster Macs
3. Potentially Cheaper macs

Why boycott.. do you really love the PowerPC that much or you scared of what apple will do.

Apple has yet to let me down.. They have always made good . no.. great products and they will continue to do so.

PowerPC is old and busted.. I dont care what my apple runs on as long as its Stable and very fast... and I am sure steve and his crew of gurus will make sure the new intel macs are insainely great, just like every mac we have owned.


A little interesting tid bit.. Did you know cisco where looking to use the G5 cpus in their high end switches but dropped it as it was too buggy!.. Do you know how many cisco products have intel cpus.. Risc cpus at that.. Intel dont make bad cpus.. They had some interesting engineering with the p3 and early p4.. but the cpus we will probably see in our macs will be decent. Their server and high end cpus are very very high quality and quick.. I think OSX will be one of the few Operating systems that will really use these new cpus to their ability.


----------



## ZP (Jun 19, 2005)

im  a mac addcit, and im loyal but im not going to buycott apple. Never happen. I do not what to see apple have more money problams. Im standing behind apple!!!!!!!!!!! Come on. How long did u wait for a PM update and u got a +200mhz becuz of IBM. How long long have u been waiting for those PB G5 to long!!! IBM is not doing as good, we gave IBM a chance and overtime they failed( but were good in past years). Intel gets a chance, and if tehy fail, we go to AMD


----------



## AdmiralAK (Jun 20, 2005)

wow...rabbid mac users are just as bad in spelling as windows and linux rabbid users


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 20, 2005)

Doont u b crrual


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Jun 20, 2005)

my typo's are aways genuine: i attempt to spell all words correctly, but they always slip through


----------



## Vultcher (Jun 20, 2005)

My guess is that Apple got very annoyed with IBM apparent lack of interest and resources in developing the Power PC chip. 

Apple had to watch with envy as Intel rolled out the Centrino chip offering high performance and low power consumption. As Apple's powerbooks had nothing new to offer and still relied on G4 processors.

I still believe the PowerPC design is superior to Intels current chipset design, its just speed, intel have cracked the manufacturing problems associated with manufacturing high speed microprocessors. IBM have not, I'll bet Intel could make a 4 GHz G5 chip if given all the design info. 

i used to write machine code for far simpler processors, the code is fine tuned for the processor, an operating system that runs on both must be compromising something (i.e. performance). 

So where to now ? 
Ideally let Intel make G5 chips , but that won't happen. We will be stuck with intel current set.

And to really make the whole thing seem crazy the new new Xbox 2 and playstation 3 seem to be using PowerPC chips (playstation cell chip I believe is closely related to PowerPC chip).
As Xbox & playstation sales rise and IBM is making a lot of cash maybe they will start to invest in R&D and really develop speedy G5 poss G6 chips.

Won't Apple look embarrassed then if the next generation of PowerPC chips start to outspeed Intels offerings


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 21, 2005)

Unfortunately, the elegant solution isn't always the popular solution. No matter how sexy that Powerbook G4 is, it still underperforms a well clocked Intel chip miserably. As for being loyal to Apple, you may as well be loyal to your political party - you're just as much the butt of Apple's jokes too. Apple has some nice innovations but lets face it - they're in this to make money. For those of us who have been screwed repeatedly by the company, it doesn't give me warm fuzzies thinking people are fans of an incorporated entity. Their primary function as a company is to make money, and yes, much of this is done at the consumer's expense by keeping us in the dark, provoking upgrades by releasing less buggy hardware (instead of fixing the problems), etc.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 21, 2005)

True, remember 'fan' is short for fanatic. To be fanatical about a corporation is disturbing to me. They exist for profit, not doing what's right or even pursuing the best technology, just what sells best in the market they are in...


----------



## powermac (Jun 21, 2005)

I understand the need for speed, especially in the marketing world. In light of Apple's decision, I purchased a new PowerBook. After using a ThinkPad for a few months, the speed of the PB is comparable. Even though I am not a power user on computers, I found the IBM to be fast in many areas, and struggled in others. Overall, I found the speed of the system inconsistent, and certainly not smooth throughout. Whether or not it was XP or the hardware, I can't determine. 
Using this new PB with Tiger, so far, I have found the system to be responsive, consistent and smooth throughout different tasks. 
Although the IBM was not a bad computer, the PB wins hands down in many categories, including features, I/O ports, and comfort to name a few. 
Whether or not my PB is as fast as a comparable XP box or not, to me, average consumer, I will take the PB over anything else, what it may lack in speed, Tiger and the hardware make up for it.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

All I can add is that my old Thinkpad @ 2 Ghz encoded movies a HECK of a lot faster than this thing @ 1.67. I mean in almost half the time.


----------



## Viro (Jun 22, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> All I can add is that my old Thinkpad @ 2 Ghz encoded movies a HECK of a lot faster than this thing @ 1.67. I mean in almost half the time.



Do you know why? This has been beaten to death on many times, but here it goes again.

The current crop of G4s are severely hampered by the 167 MHz Front Side Bus (FSB). Loosely speaking, the FSB is the connection between the CPU and the Memory (i.e. RAM). The faster it is, the faster data gets shoved between the CPU and the RAM. Intel Laptops like the Centrino have a minimum of 400 MHz as the FSB clock speed and most have 533 MHz. This is more than double that of the G4. Some Pentium 4s have an FSB of 800 MHz. Can you see why the G4 performs poorly?

In theory, the G4 should perform exceptionally well in media encoding tasks thanks to Altivec that can perform 8 operations per clock vs 2 operations per clock that SSE(1,2,3) can manage. However, 8 operations per clock means you'll need _a lot_ of bandwidth to cope with all that data, especially between the CPU and RAM. In reality, when using Altivec the G4 is actually starved for data to crunch, and it usually kept waiting for more data to be fetched from memory before it is able to proceed. As such it is rarely able to perform the "8 operations per clock".

The solution? A faster FSB. This has been addressed by Freescale (ex Motorola) with their new SoC devices that even support dual-core processors. And an integrated memory controller that should speed up memory access even more. I would be very keen to see the performance of this dual-core G4 chip because it is expected to fly.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

And this is the problem with Apple - they are the Microsoft of hardware. Instead of releasing something stable and useful (as thinkpads are), they release hardware with severe deficiencies and then rather than /motivate/ their users to upgrade by providing something cooler, they /provoke/ their users to upgrade by providing something with fewer problems.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

And if you are skeptical of my previous post, here is just a partial list of deficiencies in the "latest" Powerbooks that drive my point home. The front side bus is slower than any comparable PC laptop. The DVD burner doesn't support dual layer (in spite of the fact that most PC laptops do, and nearly all ApplePowerMacs do). The new and improved trackpad is buggy (causing weird mouse behavior) as is the sudden motion sensor technology, which frequently locks my hard drive up for a half second at a time throughout the day and makes a "dropping ping pong ball" sound. To add insult to injury, I can't tell what the system temperature is because Apple somehow broke that feature on the new Powerbooks. The processor is nowhere near as fast as advertised (probably as a result of the FSB) and the amazing Radeon 9700 graphics card is underwhelming for something that cost nearly $3k. Yet I would have to pay another $3k to get these problems fixed (and be faced with a handful of other problems) assuming they're addressed in the next Powerbooks, which naturally benefits Apple (or they wouldn't be selling handicapped laptops).


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 22, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> All I can add is that my old Thinkpad @ 2 Ghz encoded movies a HECK of a lot faster than this thing @ 1.67. I mean in almost half the time.



WOW!
Video encoding became quite an interest for me on Linux on my old AMD 2800, I have to say, my Mac mini at 1.25GHz tears strips of it. I can encode mp3, DivX and VCD MPEG-1 much quicker than before. There are some things I haven't found tools for yet, but speed is a non-issue.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

AMD 2800 = Celeron. I was running a Pentium 4M


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 22, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> AMD 2800 = Celeron. I was running a Pentium 4M


You're obviously not happy, why not sell it or get a refund and get a ThinkPad or whatever, not being rude, just practical.  You have to go for what works for you best, if Apple aren't delivering what you want - and I've a friend who feels the same about Mac hardware (and doesn't like the OS much either) - then get something which works better.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 22, 2005)

Hate to say it, but you're not making sense, first you think PowerPC Macs are the greatest, boycott Intel. Now you hate it and want an Intel. Make your mind up.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

Hate Intel, Hate Apple.

I'm screwed.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 22, 2005)

Right.. ok.  Just give up then.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

I'm thinking about going back to Amiga =)


----------



## fryke (Jun 22, 2005)

Yeah. And I'll get the dust off my Atari 1040STf, then. Although there might be a TT/030 lying around somewhere I could use. Ah, no, doesn't work for me. I'm going forward... 

Btw.: There aren't many PC notebooks where you can upgrade CPU, graphics card etc., so that's more or less the same with PC hardware. Notebooks in general are a "problem" there... (I still prefer them to desktops, mainly because I like to work in the park, on trains etc.)


----------



## nixgeek (Jun 22, 2005)

fryke said:
			
		

> Yeah. And I'll get the dust off my Atari 1040STf, then. Although there might be a TT/030 lying around somewhere I could use. Ah, no, doesn't work for me. I'm going forward...
> 
> Btw.: There aren't many PC notebooks where you can upgrade CPU, graphics card etc., so that's more or less the same with PC hardware. Notebooks in general are a "problem" there... (I still prefer them to desktops, mainly because I like to work in the park, on trains etc.)




OOHH OHHH!!

I'll gladly take them off your hands.....I have some music sequencing software that would work great with them. 

(I'm a sucker for the old gear.....it explains me still having a PowerBook Duo 230 and a Quadra 650 )


----------



## fryke (Jun 22, 2005)

Well: me, too.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 22, 2005)

Amiga supposed to be dead long time ago..


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

My point isn't that notebooks aren't upgradeable, my point is that the equipment isn't matched properly with the processor, and by design. So six months from now, Apple can finally offer a notebook with a 400Mhz FSB, dual layer, and all the other crap that's broken in my powerbook working. It's extreme planned obsolescence, and quite frankly it makes me sick that a company who has this capability today can't release a notebook that doesn't suck.


----------



## chevy (Jun 22, 2005)

jzdziarski said:
			
		

> How is PPC not cutting? Unless Jobs is lying to us, the PPC benchmarks twice as fast as high end Xeons. In other words, you won't see any significant performance increase in Macs until 6+ Ghz intels are available. I think a boycott might at least facilitate a healthy cohabitation between both processors. I've been thinking long and hard about what makes me buy Apple, and I think it's really the "think different" perspective. Moving to an Intel platform makes Apple just another PC manufacturer with nothing to set them apart from the rest of the Borg. I'll run Linux on my Powerbook before I buy an Intel book.



Today's PPC may not be that strong compared with tomorrow's Intel CPUs. The problem is not that much today, it is more that Jobs doesn't believe in IBM's roadmap.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

Everything's negotiable. IBM had 3 Ghz chips ready to ship for the new X-Box...so Apple's goals technologically were being met. The problem was, Jobs didn't have the negotiating power that Microsoft had. Introducing a cohabitation of Intel and PowerPC (and Freescale, unless they're affiliated with IBM) would have given him the extra power he needed to negotiate a better deal with IBM. Lets face it, IBM had only one business day's notice of this. This tells me that Jobs' motivation wasn't negotiation, and it also tells me that it was never negotiation. The move was more powered by malice than anything.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 22, 2005)

I heard all the was due to a conversation a couple of years ago, when IBM said that Apple were a relatively small player so why should they move heaven and earth for him, that dented Mr Jobs ego and he decided there and then that IBM would have to go. Don't know if it's true, I'll have to ask the source I got it from again.  The guy we spoke to at Apple said it was nothing to do with the 'public' reasons either.


----------



## jzdziarski (Jun 22, 2005)

Could be, but why is Jobs acting out of a bruised ego instead of making smart executive moves? On top of this, it's been a few years since the alleged discussion happened. Introducing Intel and PowerPC side by side and negotiating a new deal with IBM would be much more satisfying I would thing, and could even be humiliating, assuming that Intel has a chip that can outperform PowerPCs.


----------



## fryke (Jun 22, 2005)

And please do get facts straight, jzdziarski. IBM does NOT have 3 GHz chips ready for the Xbox. They _plan_ on having them ready. People are, in these intel-switching days, often mixing things up. They're talking of dual core PowerPCs, where none are available, but at the same time talking 32bit intels, where 64bit chips _are_ coming well ahead of Apple's switch in 12 months. IBM's _not_ shipping the chips for Xbox yet, AFAIK, and the Cell processor is not aimed at low-power-consumption computers (and is not available yet, either).

The talk is that IBM wanted more money from Apple to further develop the PowerPC (I guess they felt in a good position seeing Microsoft and Sony getting onto the PPC bandwagon...), so it was rather a question of money than bad negotiation by Apple. AFAIK, Steve didn't even negotiate when that happened, he just looked at prices and roadmaps and made the right decision. So I guess yes, it's the ego, yes it's the roadmap, yes it's the bruises (3 GHz and notebook chip missing in action) and yes it's the sweeter grass on the other side... In the end, it probably doesn't matter. We won't even be able to directly compare 'new' PPC and intel chips, because Apple quite surely won't introduce, say, a PowerBook with a new intel chip and a new PPC chip at the same time. Instead, when a line goes intel, the move will certainly involve a performance increase (compared to when they were last updated).

And later, we probably won't hear much about the PowerPCs, anyway. The Xbox PPC will _stay_ at 3.2 GHz for about two or three years, same might be true for the Cell (although that one might get used in other products than the PS3, and thus have a need for further development). Freescale's processors aren't talked about much - besides current PowerBooks and iBooks - and probably won't see desktop/notebook computers from the inside much, after Apple moves to intel.

The primary reason for Motorola and IBM to push the PowerPC as a desktop and notebook processor was Apple. Motorola's main direction was the embedded market, IBM's the big iron servers (POWER Series), the game consoles as well as the embedded market. It was a bit like slapping dead horses.


----------



## fjdouse (Jun 22, 2005)

Yep, you're right. I'm in complete agreement with you Fryke. I may have certain reservations but you're right. It's reminiscent of the Monty Python 'dead parrot' sketch.


----------



## MacFreak (Jun 22, 2005)

Well said


----------

