we can breath easier about intel macs

Hm. That multitasking thing is a Windows fault, not an intel fault. I think you're just wrong here. A little optimism would be good.
Thinking back... I had an AMD K6/200 running Windows and linux and a PowerMac 9500/200 running OS 8.x and Rhapsody DR2, and I always felt the PowerMac was far superior. Until I installed Rhapsody DR2 on the AMD machine. Suddenly, the PowerMac, which had cost some 6K USD, wasn't _that_ far ahead anymore compared to the 1K USD AMD machine. The OS made all the difference in the world. The machine suddenly _felt_ similar.
 
Fryke, I am very biased towards PowerPC and the older Apple ways of developing a Macintosh because I have had experience using windows PCs in the business world. In fact EVERY modern computer I've ever own was an Apple, whether it was an Apple IIgs, PowerBook 520c, Blue & White G3, and my new Power Mac G5 with Dually 2.7 GHz G5s. Even people at work curse at their PCs for all of the crashes, data loss on projects, performance woes, etc... and no one is even aware, or doesn't admit that other solutions exist. I have converted a few of my coworkers to the Macintosh side, two purchased iMac G5s with the remote control and built-in iSight camera for Christmas. I think still that IBM is a sleeping giant and that when pressed, it will produce what Apple has needed, but IBM also needed to have other customers for its PowerPC chips. More customers means more pressure to develop better products for improved performance. I really think that Apple is going to get burned on this transition from PowerPC to Intel technology. I do not believe for one moment that Intel will produce anything 'better' just for Apple to be a leader for a small percentage of the PC market share. Apple using dual core PowerPC chips from IBM is the better strategy right now for competing with Intel/AMD technology. I really think IBM is going to have the better technology in the long-term, Intel doesn't have anything that can compete with the high-end PowerMac G5. The G5 is a full-blown 64-bit processor with a very high performance altivec unit strapped on - nothing Intel or AMD has can compete with it, except for lower power usage, but the PowerPC G5 is based on the 64-bit Power4 architecture - big iron from IBM. I think Apple is losing control over its product offereings, not just the Power Macintosh and other Macintosh platforms, but the iPod as well. It's awefully strange that the newer iPods aren't firewire anymore, Apple technology supplanted by Intel's USB technology. I think there is a correlation here. This may be lower cost for Apple in the long run, but it is here and now that true innovation will cease in the personal computing world, harware-wise. And no matter what Apple does to protect its propietary platform, Mac OS X will be cracked by very skillfull hackers, or nearly copied via a Linux-like GPL arrangement, for the rest of the PC world to use. The only thing preventing Linux from taking over the Window PC world is lack of focus.
 
just out of craziness, the only reason i like the new intel logo is because it is slick and now they are helping apple out. If microsoft created a new logo and slogan we wouldnt be so quick to praise it. has anybody seen those amd demonstration videos (dual duel), ibm is working on 22nm processors with amd now, but i guess intel is apple's savior.
 
It's awefully strange that the newer iPods aren't firewire anymore, Apple technology supplanted by Intel's USB technology.

They said it's because USB 2.0 is faster by 80 Mbps. I also think it is because PC users also buy iPods, and not all PCs come with Firewire (and probably more PC users have heard of USB than Firewire).
 
For consumer devices, USB 2.0 makes more sense. Firewire I believe might be a little more expensive to add to a device or computer which might be why not that any devices implement them unless it's some sort of A/V device like camcorders and other consumer/prosumer/pro devices that need the power of Firewire. Remember that USB, even 2.0, is a shared technology so every device shares some of that 480 Mb bandwidth. This is why the USB ports are in such abundance since they're probably using a few controllers to make up for the sharing of bandwidth. Firewire as far as I know doesn't share the bandwidth and every device has access to the 400 Mbps bandwidth.

I could be wrong on this, but this is what I have heard.
 
You mean if I connect a FW drive to my PB and an FW drive behind that and another behind that and yet another behind that, I can copy stuff from my PB to all FW drives at 1200 Mbps? No, that's not how it works, since the PB is 400 Mbps, too. The bandwidth _is_ shared. I think the difference is that USB generally abuses the processor for logic work, whereas the FW controllers are "intelligent".
 
amd is nothing compared to g5?!? have you seen the latest amd cpus? dual core 64bit cpus around 2.5gig. the fsb at full cpu speed, not apple's half cpu speed. mobos coming with more then one cpu socket, and the chipsets to control as many cores as the cpu may have, some in the works w/4 cores! i could build a computer, buy a nice 64bit cpu, in a year or so, upgrade to dual core, then add another dual core later. then when they get here, take out one of the dual cores and replace it with a quad core. you can't even upgrade a g5! what i have been reading on amd's upcomeing cpus is way better then anything i have heard from ibm. i've even read some things from intel that is better then ibm. once apple stops buying g5s from ibm, ibm will stop development because apple is the ONLY one that has been buying that kind of g5. also, i have been using windows pcs for quite some time, and they run very well for the most part. of course they are amd cpus, but my dad's 2.8 p4 seems to run just as well as my 2.2 3200+xp. it all depends on how you maintain the computer. and i am always doing many more things then one in windows, itunes playing and downloading, surfing the web in netscape, pics open in gimp and never any lag.
 
fryke said:
You mean if I connect a FW drive to my PB and an FW drive behind that and another behind that and yet another behind that, I can copy stuff from my PB to all FW drives at 1200 Mbps? No, that's not how it works, since the PB is 400 Mbps, too. The bandwidth _is_ shared. I think the difference is that USB generally abuses the processor for logic work, whereas the FW controllers are "intelligent".

I never intended to imply that it would increase the bandwidth exponentially, but I thank you for the clarification.
 
Back
Top