For those who want to keep PowerPC...

fryke said:
You mean the Power 4, Power 5 processors? You don't want your Macs to start at 10'000 USD.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 :p), 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 ;)
 
AdmiralAK said:
Plus this is finally a good oppotrunity for straight comparisons between macs and PC and finally put people in their places ;)
Click to expand...
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.
 
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)
Click to expand...

So much for "Think Different".
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
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...
 
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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)
 
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 ? ;)
 
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.
 
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...
 
AdmiralAK said:
Now the big question is this: will RacerX give up his ThinkPad with Rhapsody on it for an intel based PowerBook ? ;)
Click to expand...
Only if it can run Rhapsody. :D

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top